‘There is confusion’: SC directs EC to give details of 3.66 lakh voters deleted from final Bihar electoral roll

Follow SOP, says court

Justice Bagchi stated, “You will definitely agree with us, the degree of transparency, and access to information, irrespective of the rights of individual is part of an open democratic process. There are three lists now – the 2022 summary revision list, the 2025 draft list and 2025 final list. From the 2022 summary and 2025 draft, it appears there was a 65 lakh deletion, which you published…and we said, whoever is dead or moved is alright but if you are deleting someone, please follow the Standard Operating Procedure.”

“We also said whoever is deleted, please put up their data in your district electoral offices. From that draft you have got the final list which appears to be appreciation of numbers. From 65 lakh, it has gone up. So, there is confusion, may not be of a person who is deleted but of the general democratic process that ‘what is the identity of this add-on?’. Is it an add-on of the deleted names or is it an add-on of the independent new names? There’s definitely add-on of some independent new names because they are new voters,” he said.

Justice Bagchi added, “This, we make it very clear, that this is in aid of the electoral process that you have started. So that the confidence in the electoral process is fortified.”

Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for some of the Opposition political parties, said the ECI’s final list says the number of people deleted is 3.66 lakh, but nobody gets a notice saying they are deleted. He added that no one has been given a reason as to why they were deleted, thereby denying them the opportunity to appeal against the deletion of their name. “Least they can do is inform,” he said.

‘No addition or deletion without notice’

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, however, denied this sand said, “Every individual voter who has been deleted has been given the order.” Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, also appearing for the poll body, said there is no addition or deletion without notice.

Justice Surya Kant told the petitioners, “If you can give us…these are persons who have not been communicated, we will direct them to communicate. Each individual has a right to appeal.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, said the SIR exercise “was meant to clean up the electoral roll but it has ended up doing just the opposite…Of course there were problems with the list, but instead of cleaning it up, it has compounded the problem.”

He contended that there was a total lack of transparency. “ECI gave list of 65 lakh deleted only when court forced it to,” he argued.

“Today they say 3.66 lakh voters deleted due to objections but not given list nor uploaded the objections as required by the election manuals nor have they given anyone a speaking order which they are required to on their deletion on the basis of the objections,” said Bhushan.

He said there was a 7 per cent reduction in the number of voters after the exercise, as well as “disproportionate exclusion of Muslims, women”. The counsel said, “Their own rules say that at the end of each day, they have to put out the objections received qua each voter,” but this was not done.

Bhushan urged the court to give some time to activist Yogendra Yadav to make his submissions. Justice Bagchi said, “We would like Mr Yadav to give an affidavit on the persons who have been deleted… The clarity should come.”

The court said it will hear him on the next date.

‘Those affected must file affidavits

Dwivedi said those who were deleted but claim to have not received orders to that effect must file affidavits saying so. Justice Kant said, “Someone will have to file some affidavit that I am the person affected.”

However, Singhvi said, “There’s a small catch. We want to do that. Your Lordships want a solution, but even for that we need some information. It’s a vicious circle.”

Dwivedi pointed out that “the final list is notified.” “The draft roll is also given to the political parties, final list also. A bare comparison will show who has been deleted…nothing more is required,” he said, adding that none of the petitioners had amended their pleas to challenge the final list on any ground whatsoever and that no one had filed any complaint with the ECI.

“They want to carry out data analysis in Delhi,” he said, and expressed apprehension that any interference at this stage might affect the election process.

“This is something very strange. Normally in the midst of election, Article 329 (b) comes in and your lordships have disfavoured…at this stage anything may happen which impacts the electoral roll or the ongoing election.”

Justice Bagchi said the court had not passed any order which interferes with the election process.

Bhushan said there was “en masse violation” of rules and individuals coming forward may not be enough to address the issue.

“If there are aggrieved persons, through any platform if they come forward, we will direct ECI,” said Justice Kant, adding some affidavits should be there at least on illustrative basis.

Bhushan said he will file affidavits of individuals affected and urged the court to direct the ECI to publish the list of the 3.66 lakh people excluded and 21 lakh included in the final roll.

Justice Kant said, “If we are satisfied on the basis of some prima facie material, but it should not look like a roving enquiry”.