1.Supreme Court directs Election Commission to publish by August 19, 5 pm.
2. Petitions challenge the Special Intensive Revision of rolls in Bihar, alleging potential disenfranchisement and questioning ECI’s authority to determine citizenship or remove voters
3. Poll body says most deletions are due to death or migration, assures due process and appeal rights.
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish, by 5 pm on August 19, a district-wise, searchable list of 65 lakh voter names deleted from the draft electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, along with reasons for each deletion.
The interim order came during the hearing of petitions challenging the ECI’s decision to conduct the SIR in poll-bound Bihar. A two-judge bench is continuing to examine whether the revision process violates constitutional rights by potentially removing eligible voters from the rolls.
During an earlier hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted the petitioners’ contention that the case pits a “Constitutional entitlement against a Constitutional right.” Petitioners argued that the ECI has no authority to determine citizenship status or remove voters without due process.
The draft electoral roll was released on August 1, with the final list scheduled for publication on September 30. Opposition parties have alleged that the SIR could disenfranchise crores of legitimate voters.
Earlier, the ECI said most deletions were due to death or migration, and that all removals complied with “principles of natural justice,” backed by a two-tier appeal process under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It maintained that the law does not require a separate list of deleted names and noted that booth-level deletion lists had already been shared with political parties before the draft roll was issued.
The poll body also rejected claims that excluded voters have no remedy, pointing to ongoing provisions for inclusion claims during the SIR. It accused petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) of trying to “malign” the commission through misleading narratives, and urged the court to impose costs on the NGO.