ECI to Apex Court: Electoral Law Doesn’t Mandate Disclosure of Voter Deletions in Bihar SIR case
(Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, August 10, 2025 — In a significant development in the ongoing litigation surrounding alleged mass deletions from the Bihar electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that there is no statutory obligation to publish a separate list of excluded voters or to provide individualized reasons for their exclusion.
According to the ECI affidavit, before publishing the draft rolls, the poll body had shared booth-level lists of electors whose forms were not received were shared with recognised political parties through their district president and booth-level agents before publishing the draft rolls.
The statement came in response to a petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the large-scale removal of names from the voter rolls in Bihar, particularly in districts with high concentrations of marginalized communities. The petitioners have alleged that the deletions were carried out without prior notice, transparency, or an opportunity for affected individuals to contest their removal.
It is further stated in the affidavit “after the publication of the draft rolls, the political parties were supplied with an updated list of names of electors not included in the draft roll so as to ensure all attempts are made to reach out to these individuals and no eligible elector is left out. The political parties have acknowledged receipt of the said list. Here, it is also pertinent to point out that the list includes acknowledgements on behalf of CPI(M-L) as well.”
ECI’s Stand Before the Apex Court. In its affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the ECI clarified that while it is committed to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the electoral rolls, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 do not require the Commission to publish a separate list of voters whose names have been deleted. Nor is there any legal provision mandating the disclosure of specific reasons for each deletion.
“There is no statutory requirement to publish a separate list of excluded voters or to provide reasons for deletion of individual names,” the ECI stated, adding that the process of revision is conducted in accordance with established norms and guidelines.
“The Petitioner asserts that this list does not contain the reasons for non-submission of Enumeration Forms. It is submitted that the aforesaid assertion is patently false and erroneous. The said assertion is yet another attempt made by the Petitioner to mislead and prejudice this Hon’ble Court.”
The Commission emphasized that deletions are typically made during the summary revision process based on field verification, reports from Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and other procedural checks. It also noted that voters whose names are deleted have the right to file claims and objections during the revision period.
Background: The Bihar SIR Case. The case stalks from a Special Investigation Report (SIR) that flagged irregularities in the electoral roll revision process in Bihar. Civil society groups and opposition parties have raised concerns that thousands of voters—many from Dalit, Muslim, and economically weaker backgrounds—were removed from the rolls without due process.
The petitioners have demanded that the ECI publish a comprehensive list of deleted voters and provide reasons for each exclusion to ensure transparency and accountability. They argue that the lack of notice and explanation violates the principles of natural justice and undermines the democratic process.
Supreme court’s response next steps. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, has sought further clarification from the ECI on the safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary deletions. The bench has also asked whether affected voters were given adequate opportunity to appeal or re-register.
Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching implications for electoral transparency and voter rights in India. If the Court rules in Favor of the petitioners, it may lead to new procedural requirements for voter roll revisions nationwide.
Public Reaction. The issue has sparked widespread debate among political parties, activists, and legal scholars. While some defend the ECI’s adherence to existing laws, others argue that the spirit of democracy demands greater transparency and accountability.
“The right to vote is fundamental. Removing names without notice or explanation is not just a technical lapse—it’s a democratic failure,” said one petitioner.
As the case continues to unfold, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court’s verdict, which could redefine how voter lists are managed an
