Supreme Court Demands Evidence on Wrongful Deletion of Bihar Voters Before Intervention

The Supreme Court bench posed numerous questions to both the Election Commission and the petitioners during the hearing.

New Delhi:

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed the need for greater clarity regarding names deleted from the final electoral roll published by the Election Commission following the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar.

The court stated that a decision on the validity of the SIR in Bihar cannot be made without sufficient information and requested the petitioners to provide affidavits with examples of at least 100-200 individuals who they claim were wrongfully removed from the voter list.

Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed multiple questions to the Election Commission as well as the petitioners, which included the Association of Democratic Reforms and various political parties, concerning allegations of unfair voter deletions.

Justice Bagchi highlighted to the EC that there was confusion requiring clarification regarding the addition and deletion of names in the final electoral list.

The judge noted that 65 lakh voters had been deleted in the draft list published on August 30. At that time, the court had approved the removal of deceased individuals or those who had relocated from Bihar, but instructed the poll body to publish data of deleted names at district electoral offices.

Justice Bagchi also pointed out an apparent increase in voter numbers in the final list, but expressed confusion about the identity of these additions. "Is it an add-on of the deleted names or add-on of independent new names?" the court inquired.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, responded that most additions were new voters.

Justice Bagchi emphasized that the court required clarity and that this should be viewed not as interference but as assistance to the electoral process. "You have draft and final list. Omission is clear from the names. Just cull out that and give us information," the court directed.

Justice Surya Kant questioned why individuals claiming wrongful deletion had not appeared before the court. He asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association of Democratic Reforms, to bring examples of at least 100 to 200 people to demonstrate wrongful deletion of voters from vulnerable societal sections.

Bhushan responded: "How many persons will come like this? EC rules say objections and deletion have to go on website with reasons. Nothing has been put on the website. They have violated their own rules, guidelines, manual, etc."

The EC subsequently urged the court to require petitioners to file an affidavit documenting their claims about mass exclusion of women, economically disadvantaged people, and Muslims.

Advocate Nizam Pasha informed the court that many people whose names had been deleted were still awaiting official orders from the EC and could only file claims upon receiving those orders.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that the 3.66 lakh persons who had been deleted received neither notices nor reasons for deletion. "They can't appeal as they don't have notice," he explained. "There is an appellate provision but there is no question of appeal because there is no information."

Justice Surya Kant stated that if the court received a list of these 3.66 lakh people, it would direct the EC to communicate with them.

"Each individual has a right to appeal," he affirmed. He further stated the court could not reach a decision without adequate information and asked petitioners to provide evidence while directing the EC to verify the claims.

Justice Surya Kant also questioned for whose benefit the court would undertake this exercise, noting that the court can only intervene when actual wrongful deletion is established.

"We want to know the people who have been deleted from voter lists and not filing appeal," Justice Surya Kant added. He reminded petitioners that there are also illegal immigrants who prefer not to be identified.

These remarks came after the ADR stated that it was impossible for every deleted voter to file an affidavit in court. "Let's have a list of 100-200 people who say 'we want to file an appeal but don't have the order'," Justice Surya Kant instructed the petitioners.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the ADR to file a detailed affidavit and asked the EC to prepare a response to the petitioners' claims by Thursday, when the next hearing is scheduled.