The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) acknowledged that “mistakes” may have occurred in the preparation of Bihar’s draft electoral roll but pointed to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) willingness to correct them. This came as petitioners alleged that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) had already resulted in the mass exclusion of voters.
Hearing a challenge to the SIR, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was told by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan that the Court had earlier promised to “step in” if mass exclusion occurred. “This has happened. Sixty-five lakh people have been excluded from the draft roll published on August 1,” he said.
Representing the ECI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi conceded that errors could occur “here and there” but stressed the roll was still in draft form and could be corrected by Booth Level Officers. He claimed that “on a conservative estimate” 6.5 crore electors need not produce fresh documents as they were already on the 2003 roll, when the last intensive revision occurred.
Petitioners, however, described the exercise as disproportionately harmful to Bihar’s poor and marginalised. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said many excluded individuals were alive despite being marked as deceased, citing one constituency where 12 such cases were found. He argued that most residents lacked the documents demanded by the ECI for citizenship verification, with only 3.05% of Bihar’s population possessing birth certificates.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi added that records could have been lost due to floods, migration, or the absence of digitisation. “Determination of citizenship is not the role of the ECI. If crores of people are already on the electoral roll, the poll body cannot ask them to prove citizenship again,” he said, calling it a case of “presumptive exclusion.”
Justice Kant pushed back on these concerns, noting that Bihar had high Aadhaar and Electors’ Photo Identity Card coverage—87%—which, while not conclusive, could serve as proof of citizenship. He warned against “sweeping statements” about document scarcity, pointing out that similar challenges would apply to other states.
The Bench also questioned the need for an SIR so soon after a summary revision in January 2025. Activist Yogendra Yadav, appearing in person, argued that SIRs globally tend to exclude a quarter of the population, particularly the poor, when the onus shifts from the state to citizens. He described the current Bihar revision as potentially “the largest disenfranchisement not only in India’s history, but in any democracy,” noting that unlike the 2003 process—when officers verified voters house-to-house—this exercise presumed exclusion unless voters reapplied.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan accused the ECI of withholding data on the reasons for deletions—death, traceability, duplication, or migration—even though it had the exact figures. He said many deletion forms simply cited “BLOs have not recommended” without explanation.
While the Court signalled openness to address genuine grievances, it stressed that petitioners must provide concrete lists of affected voters to enable corrective action. The hearing will continue.
