Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In the Bihar SIR matter, the Supreme Court today ordered that the persons who are excluded from the draft electoral roll can submit their applications for inclusion through online mode and that physical submission of forms is not necessary.

The Court further clarified that any of the eleven documents mentioned by the Election Commission of India or an Aadhaar card can be submitted along with the applications seeking inlcusion in the list.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also directed the 12 recognised political parties in the State of Bihar to instruct their Booth Level Agents to assist the persons in their respective booths for the submission of the forms. The Court impleaded all those recognised parties as respondents in the petitions, if they are not already petitioners in the matter.

The Court also expressed surprise that although there are about 1.6 lakh Booth Level Agents of political parties, only two objections have come from them. However, some parties submitted that the officers were not acknowledging the objections given by the BLAs..

"What we are surprised to see is that 1.6 lakh BLAs have so far filed only two objections. On the other hand, some political parties submitted that the BLAs are not being permitted to submit their objections," the Court noted.

Addressing the concerns raised by some petitioners that the Booth Level Officers were not issuing acknowledgement receipts to the objections submitted by the Booth Level Agents, the Court directed the BLOs to acknowledge the receipt wherever physical forms are submitted.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Election Commission of India, told the Court that a compliance affidavit has been filed stating that the lists containing the names of voters excluded from the draft roll, including the reasons of exclusions, have been published on the websites and polling booths as directed by the Court on August 14. He added that the lists have been shared with the Booth Level Agents of the political parties as well.

Dwivedi asserted that "no political party has filed a single objection (to deletion) till date." When Dwivedi said that no political party has come before the Court, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr AM Singhvi countered. Sibal said that he was representing the RJD MP Manoj Jha from the main opposition party in Bihar. Singhvi said that he was appearing in a petition jointly filed by the representatives INC, CPI(M), CPI(M-L) Liberation, CPI, NCP etc.

Dwivedi submitted that over 2 lakh forms have been filed by new voters for inclusion in the list. None of the 12 recognised political parties in the State have given any objections. "They are only whipping up fear for their political interests," he said.

"It is the duty of the political parties to come forward and assist the Election Commission in completing this exercise. But they are not coopearting," Dwivedi said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the Association for Democratic Reforms, said that many persons are working as migrant workers outside the State and they may not be able to file forms. Also, all political parties do not have Booth Level Agents in all constituencies. "Biggest opposition party is RJD. They have BLAs in only half of constituencies..." Bhushan said.

The bench then suggested that it can order that any voter can submit forms for inclusion online along with their Aadhaar cards.

"Let them submit their application forms, be it with Aadhaar card or matriculation certificates," Justice Kant said. Dwivedi suggested waiting for some more time to see how many more people are submitting forms. "Crores are filing documents, all bogus stories being [circulated]. Please wait for some time...repose some trust in EC,"he said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the Association for Democratic Reforms, said that the legality of the exercise itself must be decided. He claimed that despite the Court's order, the Booth Level Officers were not accepting Aadhaar as a standalone document. Advocate Vrinda Grover, for an organisation of voters, said that even if an Aadhaar card is submitted, the officers were insisting on any of the 11 documents specified in the SIR order.

Advocate Faouzia Shakil requested that the September 1 deadline to submit forms be extended, considering that the lists of excluded persons were published only on August 19. She also raised the concern that acknowledgement receipts were not being given to the forms given by the BLAs.

The Court noted the statement of the ECI that if 1.6 lakh BLAs can assist in verifying at least 10 documents a day, 16 lakh verifications can be done a day, which means that the entire process can be completed within 4-5 days.

To recap, the Court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging ECI's special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls ahead of the state's Assembly elections (scheduled in November). Between August 12-13, it heard submissions (read here and here) on behalf of the petitioners, which were put forth by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha), Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for PUCL, etc.) and Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for ADR), Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for ADR), Advocate Vrinda Grover and political activist Yogendra Yadav.

On August 14, the Court concluded the hearing of petitioners' arguments and then heard the Election Commission. After hearing both sides, it directed the poll body to publish on the websites of the District Electoral Officers district-wise list of 65 lakh voters (approx.) who have been omitted from the draft electoral roll published after the SIR drive. The Court also stated that the reasons for deletion, such as death, migration, double-registration etc, should be specified.

This information should also be displayed on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar and the documents should be searchable based on EPIC numbers, the Court said. Apart from that, it also directed ECI to specify in public notices that the excluded persons, at the time of submitting their claims for inclusion in the final list, can also furnish their Aadhaar cards. Wide publicity should be given through newspapers, electronic and social media that the list will be published on website, the Court said.

Developments so far

On July 28, the Court refused to stop the ECI from publishing draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1. But, it orally told the ECI to atleast consider Aadhaar Card and EPIC. Justice Kant impressed upon ECI that instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion".

On July 29, the Court was told that 65 lakh persons are likely to be excluded from the draft electoral rolls. In response, it orally said that if there is mass exclusion, it will step in.

On August 6 (after the draft list was published), ADR filed an application alleging that ECI had not disclosed details of the omitted 65 lakh voters. It further claimed that in case of some voters who were included in the list, the BLOs had 'not recommended' the names and reasons for exclusion were not made available. Thereafter, ECI filed an affidavit stating inter-alia that (i) it is not obligated under the applicable Rules to publish a separate list of persons who have not been included in the draft electoral roll, (ii) the Rules do not mandate it to furnish reasons for non-inclusion of any individual in the draft roll.

On August 12, the petitioners opened arguments, details of which can be read here. It was contended inter-alia that the Bihar SIR is illegal and the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted on voters/electors. A key aspect of the hearing was the production of two persons in Court, who were allegedly declared dead by the ECI in Bihar's draft rolls after SIR. The bench however was of the view that the same could be due to an 'inadvertent error', which could be rectified.

On August 13, referring to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the bench asked both sides whether ECI does not have residual power to conduct an exercise like Bihar SIR in a "manner it deemed fit". Insofar as the issue of West Bengal SIR initiation was raised, the bench said that the same will be dealt with later. Pursuant to an allegation that ECI deleted the searchability feature in draft electoral rolls published on its website, the bench asked both sides to inform whether the draft rolls were published in the Electoral Registration Office in compliance with the 1960 Rules.

For a detailed background, click here.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)