New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, in a pivotal hearing on Tuesday, pressed the Election Commission of India (ECI) for detailed clarifications regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls, a process that has sparked controversy ahead of the state’s Assembly elections scheduled to begin on November 6, 2025.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing petitions from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), opposition parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress, and several NGOs, who allege that the SIR process is arbitrary, opaque, and risks disenfranchising vulnerable groups, including minorities, women, Dalits, and migrant workers.
The hearing, which concluded at 3:26 PM, saw sharp exchanges as the court balanced the ECI’s constitutional mandate with concerns over procedural fairness, setting the stage for further arguments on October 9 and 14.
The SIR, initiated by an ECI order on June 24, 2025, aimed to update Bihar’s voter lists, last intensively revised nearly two decades ago, to address inaccuracies due to migration, demographic changes, and outdated records. The process culminated in the final electoral rolls published on September 30, 2025, listing approximately 7.42 crore voters—a reduction from earlier estimates, with 21 lakh additions (primarily new voters aged 18-19) and 3.66 lakh exclusions, mainly attributed to deaths or permanent migration.
The draft rolls, published on August 1, 2025, had initially flagged around 65 lakh deletions, prompting petitions that claimed the process violated constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (free speech), and 21 (life and liberty). Critics argued that the requirement of 11 specific documents (e.g., birth certificates or passports, initially excluding Aadhaar) to verify eligibility, coupled with tight timelines, placed an undue burden on voters, contravening the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, which presumes eligibility for those already on rolls.
SC sought comparative analysis
During today’s hearing, the bench sought precise details from the ECI to address these concerns. The court directed the ECI to submit, by October 9, a comparative analysis of the 3.66 lakh excluded voters, including their names, reasons for deletion (e.g., death, migration, or non-compliance with verification), and whether deletion orders were communicated to affected individuals.
The bench emphasized that if petitioners provide a specific list of voters who were not notified, the ECI must issue notifications to them. Additionally, the court asked whether the 21 lakh additions to the rolls were entirely new voters or included reinstatements of previously deleted names, a point of contention raised by petitioners who alleged “recycling” of exclusions without proper verification.
The ECI was also tasked with clarifying its plans for a nationwide SIR rollout, tentatively slated for 2026, as the court underscored that any ruling in this case would have pan-India implications.
ECI Argument
The ECI, represented by senior counsel, defended the SIR as a necessary exercise under its constitutional authority (Article 324) and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to ensure only eligible citizens vote. It argued that no affected voters had directly complained, with objections primarily coming from “Delhi-based NGOs” relying on data analysis rather than individual grievances.
The ECI highlighted that draft and final voter lists were publicly available on its website and district portals, allowing individuals to verify their status and file claims or objections until September 1, 2025. It further noted that most deletions were due to verified issues like permanent migration, supported by field verification and booth-level officer reports.
Court’s concern over “Trust deficit”
The bench, while acknowledging the ECI’s “exclusive domain” over electoral rolls, expressed concern over a “trust deficit” in the process, urging greater transparency to restore voter confidence. It reiterated its July 2025 interim directions, which made the SIR more voter-friendly by allowing Aadhaar (alongside Voter ID or ration cards) for claims, mandating searchable online publication of deleted voters’ lists with reasons, and deploying para-legal volunteers to assist voters.
However, the court refused to entertain piecemeal relief, stating, “We cannot interfere unless specific illegalities are proven. For whom are you doing this? Produce specific aggrieved individuals via affidavits, not a roving inquiry.” It also rebuffed oral submissions from non-counsel, such as activist Yogendra Yadav, suggesting they file affidavits instead.
The hearing saw the bench question the petitioners’ locus standi and the practicality of their demands, noting that individuals could easily check their voter status online and appeal exclusions. Justices Kant and Bagchi warned that proven fraud, such as forged forms claiming deceased voters, could lead to the entire SIR exercise being struck down nationwide. They also expressed frustration with political parties’ “inaction” in assisting the ECI during the revision process, particularly in identifying erroneous deletions through booth-level agents.
Instructions to ensure online accessibility
With the Bihar elections fast approaching, the court’s cautious approach reflects the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the ECI’s autonomy. Today’s directions build on earlier interim measures, which included accepting alternative documents for claims and publicizing deletion data via district websites and newspaper ads.
The ECI was instructed to continue displaying deletion data at Block Development Offices (BDOs) and ensure online accessibility. The bench declined to issue new interim orders, instead focusing on factual clarifications to assess the SIR’s legality.
The case is set for further hearings on October 9 (at 3:45 PM) for the ECI’s initial response to ADR’s submissions, and October 14 for detailed arguments. As the controversy unfolds, the outcome could reshape electoral roll revisions across India, with the court signalling that any evidence of arbitrary or mala fide actions could have far-reaching consequences.
For now, voters are urged to verify their status on the ECI’s portal, as the bench emphasized individual responsibility in the process. The hearing underscores the tension between electoral integrity and the risk of disenfranchisement, a critical issue as Bihar heads to the polls.
