NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a detailed response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) following serious allegations regarding the deletion of approximately 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s electoral rolls. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the removal process.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. K. Singh issued a notice to the ECI during the hearing, asking the Commission to submit a written clarification by Saturday.
According to Bhushan, the deletions occurred during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive without publicly disclosing the names or valid reasons for such removals. He alleged that the ECI claimed the deletions were made on grounds such as death or migration, but failed to follow the required protocol involving Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
“Several BLOs have confirmed that they did not recommend deletions, yet the names were removed,” Bhushan told the court, raising questions about procedural violations and potential disenfranchisement.
Justice Surya Kant observed that as per the ECI’s Standard Operating Procedures, draft rolls should be shared with all recognized political parties at the block level. Bhushan, however, responded that while some parties may have received the draft lists, the specific reasons for deletions were not communicated, leaving the process opaque.
The ECI’s counsel defended the Commission’s actions, stating that the draft rolls had been made public and shared with political parties. However, the bench was not satisfied with the verbal assurance and directed the ECI to provide a list of political parties who received the draft rolls. “Let the petitioner approach those parties directly for more details,” Justice Kant added.
The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding electoral transparency and voter rights, instructing the ECI to file a comprehensive reply within the stipulated time. “We want to ensure that every potentially affected voter is duly informed,” said the bench.
The matter has been listed for further hearing after the Commission’s response is filed.
