The Supreme Court has raised concerns regarding the transparency of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, demanding clarity from the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the identity of newly added voters. This scrutiny comes amid petitions filed by NGOs, activists, and political parties challenging the revision process, citing concerns about potential disenfranchisement and lack of transparency.
The heart of the issue lies in the ECI's three-month SIR exercise in Bihar, which aimed to revise the electoral rolls ahead of the state elections scheduled for November 2025. While the ECI added 2.1 million new voters to the final electoral rolls, it also deleted 366,000 names after an initial draft roll had already removed 6.5 million voters. This has led to questions about whether the new additions are genuinely new voters or individuals reapplying after being previously removed.
During a recent hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the ECI about the details of the voters added to the final list, emphasizing that transparency and access to information are hallmarks of a healthy democracy. The court sought clarification on whether the ECI had individually informed the excluded voters to facilitate their right to appeal.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), alleged that a significant number of those excluded were Muslims and women. He argued that the revision process had compounded existing problems instead of resolving them and urged the Court to direct the publication of lists showing the voters deleted after the draft roll and those added in the final version. ADR has also argued that the SIR could disenfranchise nearly 3 crore voters by requiring citizens to furnish documents proving their and their parents' citizenship within a short timeframe.
The ECI, represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, assured the Court that "most of the add-ons voters are new". The ECI also stated that the voter roll revision in Bihar had followed due process and that no genuine voter had complained; only Delhi-based NGOs had raised objections through data analysis. Dwivedi also noted that no political party or individual voter was before the Bench except public interest groups.
The Supreme Court has previously addressed the issue of documentation required for voter registration. It clarified that Aadhaar, along with 11 other notified identity documents, could be furnished by electors seeking inclusion in Bihar's electoral rolls and directed the ECI to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents during the revision process. However, the court also emphasized that Aadhaar cannot be used as proof of citizenship.
The court acknowledged the ECI's stance that political parties should do more than raise objections and instead "act as NGOs" to assist voters in ensuring their names are correctly listed. While refusing to halt the revision process, the Supreme Court has maintained that it would intervene if evidence of mass exclusion emerges.
The Supreme Court has directed the ECI to provide details of the 370,000 excluded voters. The case is scheduled for further hearing, where the court will likely assess the transparency and fairness of the electoral roll revision process in Bihar.
