Bihar SIR: Supreme Court Orders ECI To Publish 65 Lakh Deleted Voter Names, State Reasons For Removal
The Supreme Court directed the ECI to publicise the names of 6.5 million deleted voters from Bihar's electoral rolls online and at local offices, accepting Aadhaar for claims.
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to make public the names of 65 lakh voters deleted from the electoral rolls, both online and physically, while also seeking details on the 2003 electoral roll revision process in Bihar.
According to Bar and Bench, the bench led by Justice Surya Kant instructed that the deleted names be displayed on district-level websites as well as noticeboards of all panchayat bhawans and Block Development and Panchayat offices, ensuring manual access for citizens. The court also directed that Aadhaar be accepted as a valid document for claims.
Names to be Published Online and at Local Offices
Justice Surya Kant said, “A list of 65 lakh voters whose names appeared in 2025 list but are not included in the draft list, shall be displayed on the district level websites.” The display must also mention the reason for exclusion from the draft roll.
The court ordered that wide publicity be given through vernacular language newspapers with maximum circulation, as well as via Doordarshan, other television channels, and social media handles of district election officers. “Aggrieved persons may submit their claims along with copy of their Aadhaar cards,” Justice Kant added, as per Bar and Bench.
The Supreme Court also asked the Election Commission to obtain a compliance report from all the booth level and district level officers and file a compliance report. The matter was posted for further hearing on August 22.
SC Seeks 2003 Bihar Revision Records
As reported by news agency PTI, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the ECI to state what documents were considered during the intensive electoral roll revision in Bihar in 2003. The directive came during hearings on petitions challenging the June 24 decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state.
Advocate Nizam Pasha argued there was no evidence to justify the choice of 1 January 2003 as the reference date, saying, “Nothing was there to show why this date is there… The impression sought to be conveyed is that it is the earlier date when the intensive exercise for revision of the electoral roll was held.” He contended that claims suggesting EPIC cards issued then were more reliable than those from subsequent summary exercises were “incorrect”.
Pasha also raised concerns over the lack of acknowledgement receipts for enumeration forms, alleging that booth-level officers had excessive discretion. Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing another petitioner, criticised the notification, saying, “This is a process of voter registration and cannot be a process of disqualification. This is a process to welcome and not turn this into a process to unwelcome.”
On 13 August, the Supreme Court observed that electoral rolls are not static and revisions are inevitable. It upheld the ECI’s decision to expand the list of acceptable identity documents from seven to eleven for Bihar’s SIR, terming it “voter-friendly and not exclusionary”. The bench also maintained that the EC had the residual power to conduct such exercises.
Opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Congress, and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) have challenged the Bihar voter list revision drive.
Top Headlines
