Bihar SIR row: SC directs EC to publish by Tue details of 65 lakh voters excluded
Cong, RJD hail order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission to publish by August 19 details of the 65 lakh voters excluded from the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar to enhance “transparency” in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters’ list and allow Aadhaar as an acceptable document for identity proof.
Observing that the EC should put at rest the “narrative being built” against it, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and JoymalyaBagchi also ordered that the details should include reasons for their non-inclusion during the ongoing SIR exercise. “Transparency will create voter confidence.”
The revision of the voters’ list in Bihar–the first since 2003–has sparked a huge political row. The SIR’s findings have reduced the total number of 7.9 crore registered voters in Bihar, from before the exercise, to 7.24 crore.
The Congress described the EC directive as a “beacon of hope” and a “massive victory for democracy”, and said the top court has upheld the Constitution in a “categorical, convincing, and courageous” manner. The Congress along with the RJD and an NGO Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) are the petitioners in the case.
Reacting to the EC order, Congress general secretary in-charge organisation K C Venugopal said the Court rejecting the EC’s decision to not accept Aadhar is also a major boost since in a state like Bihar it is the most widely held document by the poor and marginalised.
RJD leader TejashwiYadav claimed that the court order exposed the BJP, its allies and their “nefarious design” to disenfranchise people.
The order to publish the list of excluded voters by next Tuesday was passed on pleas challenging the EC decision on June 24 to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar.
The bench directed that people whose name has been deleted from the voters’ list can stake their claim by approaching the poll officials and furnish Aadhaar card, calling the document a statute approved proof of identity.
Justice Kant told senior advocate RakeshDwivedi, who is appearing for the EC, that deletion of voters from the electoral rolls can have civil consequences of depriving a citizen of right to franchise, therefore fair procedure was required to be followed and Aadhaar should be accepted.
Aadhaar was not among the list of 11 acceptable documents for the SIR exercise. According to the EC, Aadhaar and voter cards are not conclusive proof of citizenship for SIR and that it has to be supported by other documents.
The court directed that the list of 65 lakh voters whose names featured in the electoral rolls but dropped from the draft rolls published on August 1 be displayed along with reasons–-dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies–-at the notice boards of Panchayat, block development office and district level returning officers office to enable the people approach the poll panel for correction or clarification.
The bench further stressed on giving wide publicity via newspapers including vernacular and English dailies besides television news channels and radio to the public informing the people about the places where the list would be available.
It directed that the soft copies of deleted voters list, which will be uploaded in district electoral officer website or social media handles, should be searchable by Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number. A compliance report should be filed to the court by August 22, the bench ordered.
Dwivedi, who at the outset submitted that the EC appears to be operating in an atmosphere of hostility and its decisions are sharply contested, said at present nobody is deleted from the operative list of 2025 subject to the final electoral rolls to be published on September 30.
“After the final electoral rolls is published on September 30, the older list will get replaced. Today the exercise is of preparation of the final list and nobody has been deleted as of now.”
Justice Kant said the public notice and display of the list should be layman friendly, so that aggrieved persons can search the required details.
During the hearing, Dwivedi informed the court that going by the conservative estimate around 6.5 crore people of the 7.24 crore people who figure in the draft rolls were not required to submit any documents for the SIR exercise in Bihar as they or their parents were registered in the 2003 voters’ list.
He said the EC is currently caught between the struggle of political parties and if they win, then it is said that the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) is good and if they lose, for them EVM is bad.
On August 1, the reasons cited by the EC for non-inclusion of previously registered voters in the draft rolls included death (22.34 lakh), “permanently shifted/absent” (36.28 lakh) and “already enrolled (at more than one places)” (7.01 lakh).
Stating that it prima facie agreed that the EC has the power for intensive survey of the entire electoral rolls of Bihar, the top court said,“If you bring it in public domain, the narrative disappears.”
“You’re exercising the power of intensive survey as a preliminary enquiry into every voter identity…These powers are prima facie traceable, so we do not wish to interdict. But, your manner of doing this has to be reasonable. It has to give certain comfort to citizens and should not strain a person to become eligible,” Justice Bagchi said.
The top court said it is not being critical of the EC for not doing something, asserting that transparency in publishing the complete details of 65 lakh dropped voters will help in building voter confidence.
“We are not being critical of you not doing something…transparency will help create voter confidence. Why don’t you take an additional step of putting it up on a website, clearly identifying persons who are not there, with reasons, so that they can take remedial measures?” Justice Bagchi told Dwivedi.
ECI conducts summary revision of electoral rolls ahead of elections for inclusion and deletion of voters every year whereas intensive revision are conducted for a thorough revision of electoral rolls in a state after a period of time.
The bench told Dwivedi that since there is a serious dispute of dead or alive, there should be some mechanism from which people can know whether their family member has been included or deleted. To this, Dwivedi said political party workers have been associated to ascertain and help the people with their claims.
Justice Kant said, “We don’t want a citizen’s right to be dependent on workers of political parties. We are not criticising political workers. Of course they will have an ideology. We are saying all people must be able to independently check the same.”
“If people are happy with omissions being made, that’s the end of the chapter as far as they are concerned. At least they will be satisfied, knowing the reason,” Justice Bagchi said.
