“No Ground-Level Complaints, Only Delhi Activists Doing Data Analysis”: ECI Defends Bihar Roll Revision in SC
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday strongly defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls before the Supreme Court, asserting that there has been no real grievance from voters on the ground, and that only a handful of organisations based in Delhi were raising data-driven objections without field verification.
Appearing before the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, rejected allegations of large-scale voter deletions and opacity in the revision exercise.
He said, “It is just ADR, PUCL and some individuals (politicians) in Delhi who want to carry out data analysis. But on the ground, there is no complaint.”
Dwivedi contended that the entire process was transparent, and every deletion had followed due procedure. “Each voter whose name was deleted has been issued an order. There is a complete record available with the Election Commission,” he said, adding that the final electoral roll has already been notified and that no affected person has filed an appeal so far.
Dwivedi pointed out that the petitioners have not amended their pleas after publication of the final rolls. “Without challenging the final list, these petitions are academic in nature,” he argued. Dwivedi further stressed that interference at this stage would disrupt the ongoing election process, as the Bihar Assembly polls are scheduled for November 6 and 11, with counting on November 14, 2025.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), alleged that it has led to the disproportionate exclusion of women, Muslims, and marginalised groups. Bhushan argued that the exercise, meant to clean up electoral rolls, has instead “compounded the problem.” He said the ECI has failed to provide lists of deleted voters, speaking orders, or public disclosure as required. “Instead of transparency, there is opacity. The deletions and notices should be publicly available on the EC website,” he said.
Justice Bagchi noted, “We had directed that names of deleted voters be displayed on boards across districts. The issue here is transparency. We have no problem with removing dead or moved voters, but the process must follow Rule 21 and SOPs.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for the petitioners, raised concern over lack of notice to voters whose names were deleted. “The portal shows deletions, but individuals don’t get reasons or notice. Without that, how can they appeal?” he asked.
Responding, Justice Kant said: “If anyone can give a list of voters out of the 3.66 lakh who haven’t received orders, we will direct the EC to issue them. Every voter has a right to appeal.”
The Court noted that while the ECI claims all deleted voters were informed, petitioners can provide illustrations or affidavits to show otherwise. Bhushan said he could furnish details of 65 individuals immediately.
The Bench observed that the issue must not turn into a “roving inquiry,” but if prima facie violations are shown, it can issue appropriate directions. Justice Kant added, “It should not appear as a fishing expedition. But if we find substance, we will act.”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, also representing the ECI, backed Dwivedi's submission, saying: “The petitioners claim deletions without proof. Even the two persons they (Yogendra Yadav) produced earlier failed to provide basic particulars.”
To this, Justice Kant said, "We are aware of one of them but prefer not to disclose in Court."
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, urged the Court to restrain political or civil society commentary that undermines the credibility of the electoral process. “This constant refrain of ‘vote chori’ or stolen votes is damaging. The Court is already monitoring the issue; such parallel campaigns must stop,” he said.
The Bench took note of the submissions, observing that the petitions raised larger questions of transparency but agreed that the ECI’s statutory process must continue without interruption.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that the Court’s role is limited to ensuring fair procedure. “The exercise of revision is an aid and supports the electoral process and strengthens public confidence,” he observed.
The matter will now be heard again on Thursday (October 9).
Previously, on September 15, the Court had assumed that the ECI, as a constitutional authority, was following the law in conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls and warned that any illegality would render the exercise void.
On July 28, the Supreme Court reiterated its stance that it was not going to stay the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. "There should not be mass exclusion.. we want mass inclusion", a Justice Surya Kant led bench further told the Election Commission of India.
Recently, Association for Democratic Reforms told the Supreme Court of India that Election Commission of India has given no valid reason for exclusion of Aadhar, EPIC and Ration Card from the list of documents which can be submitted during the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls being carried out in Bihar.
Earlier, the ECI had told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and ration cards cannot be accepted as valid proof of citizenship during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. In a detailed affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the revision drive, the Commission had emphasized that these documents lack legal sanctity for determining citizenship and thus cannot be relied upon to validate voter eligibility. The affidavit was submitted in a batch of petitions led by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), marks a significant legal moment in the debate surrounding the intersection of identity documentation and electoral rights.
On July 10, the Apex Court had allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to proceed with its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar but directed that documents like Aadhaar, EPIC voter ID cards, and ration cards should also be considered in the process.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Hearing Date: October 7, 2025
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi