Introduction:

In a high-stakes hearing on October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took up petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The lead petitioner is the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), joined by other NGOs and individuals, while the respondent is the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petitioners contend that the SIR process in Bihar has lacked transparency, resulted in mass deletions without proper notice or reasons, and potentially disenfranchised vulnerable groups. The ECI, on the other hand, defends its exercise as lawful and procedurally valid, emphasizing that due processes have been followed. The Court focused particularly on the opaque nature of deletions and additions in the final electoral list, and whether voters removed from the draft list had been wrongly re-added or altogether replaced. The hearing was adjourned to October 9, with the Court directing the ECI to produce detailed information distinguishing the 3.66 lakh voters deleted at the final stage and the 21 lakh newly added names.

Arguments of the Petitioners (ADR and Others):

• Non-transparency in deletions and additions

The petitioners assert that the ECI has not published the names or reasons for the additional 3.66 lakh voters deleted in the final roll after the draft list. Without such disclosure, affected persons cannot even know that they have been removed, let alone challenge the removal.

They argue that the 21 lakh new voters included at the final stage may, in fact, merely be those previously deleted, rather than fresh legitimate entries. This, they say, creates confusion and undermines trust in the electoral process.

The SIR, in their view, has resulted in disproportionate exclusion of women, Muslim communities, and other marginalized groups, exacerbating systemic inequities rather than remedying them.

• Denial of meaningful appeal

The petitioners contend that persons whose names are deleted receive no individual notice or reasons for deletion; thus, they have no opportunity to file appeals. As Senior Advocate A. M. Singhvi put it, “Persons who are deleted do not get notice … They don’t get the reasons. There is no question of appeal because no one knows.”

Without knowing whether they were deleted or why, affected voters cannot even identify themselves to the ECI, much less mount a challenge.

• Burden of proof and shifting onus

The petitioners argue that the ECI is impermissibly shifting the burden onto voters to prove their eligibility, rather than bearing the burden of justification for deletion.

They also raise concerns about the exclusion of commonly held documents (like Aadhaar, EPIC, ration cards) from acceptable proof in the original SIR process — a position the petitioners have repeatedly challenged in earlier hearings.

• Judicial oversight and legitimacy of SIR

The petitioners urge that the Court must exercise oversight, especially given the magnitude of deletions (65 lakh dropped after draft) and additions. They insist the process should not be allowed to become a “roving enquiry,” but the Court must be ready to issue directions on prima facie violations.

They also noted that the Supreme Court had earlier ordered publication of the 65 lakh names excluded in the draft stage, setting a precedent for further transparency.

• Affidavits by affected persons

To assist the Court, the petitioners offered to submit affidavits by a sample of persons whose names were allegedly deleted but who did not receive orders. This, they argued, would enable the Court to assess prima facie cases for intervention.

Arguments of the ECI

• Procedural compliance and issuance of orders

The ECI’s counsel, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, stated that deleted persons have been issued orders of deletion, implying that notices have been sent to those affected.

He also stressed that no individual voter has approached the Court claiming they were unjustly deleted, suggesting lack of concrete grievances from ordinary electors.

• Nature of additions

The ECI’s stand is that most of the 21 lakh additions in the final list are genuinely new voters, and are not simply re-additions of previously deleted names.

Therefore, according to its counsel, the concern about re-addition of wrongly deleted names is overstated and not borne out by data.

• Election timing and judicial restraint under Article 329

The ECI argued that the election schedule has already been announced, invoking Article 329 of the Constitution, which limits Court interference once the election process is in motion.

It maintained that once the final list is published, challenge to the electoral rolls would properly lie only via an election petition after the polls, not in this Court midstream.

• Limitation on scope of challenge

Mr. Dwivedi also contended that the petitioners had not specifically challenged the final list published in September; their challenge was directed at the overall SIR exercise and earlier deletions. Thus, in his view, some aspects of the final list fall outside the scope of the petitions.

He resisted the Court entertaining a wide “roving enquiry” into the entire process based on unverified claims.

Observations and Interim Directions by the Court:

During the oral hearing, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi exhibited pointed concern over data opacity and the need to protect electoral rights. Some key observations and steps:

The Court voiced that there is confusion as to whether the final added names are restorations of names earlier deleted or new independent entries. Justice Bagchi remarked: “Final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers … there is confusion … Is it an add-on of deleted names or is it an add-on of independent new names?”

Justice Kant observed that if some of the 3.66 lakh persons did not receive orders of deletion, the ECI should be directed to issue those orders so that they may avail appeal. He said, “If anyone can give the list of voters out of these 3.66 lakh who have not received orders … we will direct EC to give them orders … everyone has right to appeal.”

The bench did not accept documents handed over across the bar; instead, it insisted that petitioners file proper affidavits.

The Court cautioned against turning the hearing into a generalized, unlimited probe, stating that only upon prima facie satisfaction can it issue directive orders.

Crucially, the bench ordered the ECI to “cull out” from its draft and final lists the names that were deleted and added, to provide clarity and facilitate comparison to the Court. Justice Bagchi instructed: “You have the draft list and the final list. Omission is clear from the names. Just cull out that and give us information.”

When the petitioners offered to bring several affected persons, the bench responded that they should present a sample (say, 100-200 persons) to assist in identifying prima facie cases.

The Court adjourned the matter to October 9, with a clear expectation that the ECI furnish the required information by then.

No final judgment was delivered in this session; the Court’s focus remained on ensuring that the ECI responds to the foundational gaps in transparency.