New Delhi: The Supreme Court today directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a detailed response by Saturday to serious allegations raised by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) on the deletion of approximately 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral roll, released on August 1 after a Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued the direction during a hearing on an interlocutory application (IA) filed by ADR, which alleged that the ECI failed to disclose the identities of those whose names were omitted or whether they were deceased or had migrated.
The hearing saw an intense courtroom exchange as Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, argued that no comprehensive list of the omitted 65 lakh names was made public.
He further stated, “They say 32 lakh migrated, but there are no specific details. They should disclose who these 65 lakh people are who are dead, who have migrated. The BLOs (Booth Level Officers) have recommended deletions in two constituencies, but what about the rest of the state?”
Justice Kant responded, “As per their ECI’s SOP, representatives of every political party are supposed to be informed.”
To this, Bhushan countered, “According to our information, over 75% of voters did not submit any of the required 11 documents, yet were either included or excluded from the rolls based on BLOs’ own filled forms. Even among those included, BLOs did not recommend many.”
Justice Kant then asked Bhushan to provide a copy of the IA to the ECI, saying, “They are bound to give the list who is dead, who have migrated. File a copy. We will ensure that every voter likely to be affected gets the required information.”
The ECI’s counsel refuted the allegations, stating that lists were shared with political party representatives prior to the draft roll’s publication and termed Bhushan’s claims as “incorrect.”
But the Bench insisted that these claims must be placed on record and asked the ECI to name the political parties who were provided the lists.
“Just say all this in your reply. Give a list of the political parties to whom the draft roll was shared, so that Mr Bhushan’s client can get information from those authorized representatives,” Justice Kant said.
The court directed that the ECI must file a comprehensive reply by Saturday, detailing the basis for the deletion of 65 lakh names, classification of voters as deceased or migrated. Amd whether BLO recommendations were followed.
The names of political parties that were given access to the draft roll should also me mentioned, Justice Kant noted. “We are only at a preliminary stage… But we will ensure that every affected voter is informed and that proper procedures are followed.”
The IA filed by ADR will now be heard alongside the main matter on August 12.
Despite a request by the ECI for more time, the court remained firm, “Don’t take much time. File your reply in advance by Saturday so Mr Bhushan knows what has been supplied and what is missing. Then our consideration will be limited to what has not been disclosed.”
The case continues to raise crucial questions about transparency, procedural integrity, and voter rights in the electoral roll revision process.
