There Is Confusion: SC Requests EC to Provide Information Regarding 3.66 Lakh Voters Eliminated from the Final Bihar Roll

The absence of transparency around the removal and inclusion of names in Bihar's final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process has deeply alarmed the Supreme Court. Although the Election Commission of India (ECI) eliminated approximately 3.66 lakh voters from the final list (in addition to approximately 65 lakh from the draft roll), it is unclear if the impacted individuals were informed of these deletions.

SC Requests ECI Transparency

Whether the 3.66 lakh deletions in the final register were newly removed names or reintroduced names from among the 65 lakh already removed was a point raised by a two-judge panel led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. A crucial component of due process in election amendments is individual notification, which the court wanted to clarify.

Justice Bagchi emphasized the importance of openness by stating:

The 2022 summary revision list, the 2025 draft list, and the 2025 final list are currently the three lists. The final list includes additional deletions from the 65 lakh names that were removed from the draft. The identity of these "add-ons" is unclear.

He continued by saying that the additions probably consist of both independently created new registrations and reinstated names, highlighting the need for the electoral process to inspire trust.

Conflict Regarding Notice and Appeal Rights

While the ECI claims to have removed 3.66 lakh voters, opposition parties' Senior Advocate A. M. Singhvi contended that no one was informed or given an explanation for the removal, depriving them of the chance to appeal.

ECI counsel, for its part, disagreed, arguing that all deletions were accompanied by a communication and that no changes were made without prior notice. 

 In order for the court to impose corrective action, Justice Surya Kant stepped in and asked the petitioners to name the specific people who were allegedly denied notice.

Claims of Unjustified Exclusions and Rule Violations

Prashant Bhushan, an NGO lawyer, denounced the SIR process as the antithesis of a "clean-up," pointing to several violations:

Despite regulations requiring it, no specific "speaking orders" (explanations of removal) were given.

Neither the deleted list of 3.66 lakh nor the objections were ever made public.

Election guidelines state that objections must be disclosed every day.

a significant 7% decline in the number of voters, with women and Muslims allegedly being disproportionately excluded.

In order to enable for public review, Bhushan asked the court to order the ECI to release the list of names that were added and deleted (3.66 lakh names were removed and 21 lakh names were added).

Future Actions and the Court's Guidance

The Supreme Court requested affidavits from people who said they were removed without warning.

The issue will be discussed in the upcoming hearing, and the court has indicated that it is willing to order ECI to release lists if the evidence supports it, so long as it doesn't amount to a "roving inquiry" that tampers with the election process.

ECI claimed that political parties were given access to both the draft and final lists, and that petitioners had not contested any particular names.

The court explained that, in accordance with Article 329(b) of the Constitution, it has not made any orders that would interfere with the current elections.