Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Continued accusations from NGO-petitioners that the Election Commission deleted names from the Bihar voter list after the special intensive revision made EC retort in the Supreme Court that all political parties have expressed satisfaction with the exercise and that not a single appeal has been filed against the deletion of names. The bench said, “There are people living unauthorisedly in the state. They do not want to expose themselves by filing appeals against deletion of their names. Let hundred people file affidavits and tell the court that they want to file an appeal against deletion of their names.”
The final Bihar voter list contained 7.4 crore names. SIR saw the deletion of 65 lakh voters in the draft voters list. Subsequently, another 3.7 lakh names were deleted, and 21.5 lakh voters, mostly new ones, were added. The Supreme Court asked EC to provide it with the details of 3.7 lakh excluded voters.
Poll
Should the Election Commission provide more transparency in the voter list revision process?
With EC counsel Rakesh Dwivedi insisting that the NGO represented by Prashant Bhushan should file affidavits by individuals alleging that their names were deleted without intimation, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi wondered, “For whom was this exercise undertaken (by the NGO)?”What’s the identity of add-ons, are they of deleted names or new ones: SC to ECWhile hearing NGO-petitioners against the special intensive revision of the Bihar electoral rolls on Tuesday, Supreme Court said that since it appears that there is an appreciation of numbers from the draft rolls, to avoid any confusion, the identity of add-ons should be disclosed.“You’d agree with us that the degree of transparency and access has improved in the electoral process. It appears from the data that there was a 65-lakh deletion in the draft list which you published, and we said whoever is dead or moved is all right, but if you are deleting someone, please follow Rule 21 and the SOP.”“We also said that whoever is deleted, please put up their data in your electoral offices. Now the final list appears to be an appreciation of numbers and there is confusion in the general democratic process — what is the identity of the add-ons, are they of deleted names or new names,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.With EC counsel Rakesh Dwivedi insisting that the NGO represented by Prashant Bhushan should file affidavits by individuals alleging that their names were deleted without intimation, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bagchi wondered, “For whom was this exercise undertaken (by the NGO)?”Senior advocate Maninder Singh recalled petitioner Yogendra Yadav bringing to the courtroom two voters whose names were deleted as dead and said, “EC repeatedly requested the person concerned to give details of the two individuals to enable the commission to carry out necessary corrections. Till date no detail has been given.”The Justice Kant-led bench said, “We also have information about the two voters but do not want to disclose in open court.” While agreeing to hear Yadav for 30 minutes on Thursday, the bench told Bhushan to bring affidavits of people whose names were deleted without being informed about it.EC repudiated this by saying of the 65 lakh deleted names — 22 lakh deceased, 36 lakh permanently shifted and seven lakh enrolled at multiple places — not a single individual has filed an appeal against deletion. Dwivedi said no political party has facilitated a single person since Oct 1, when the final voter list was published, to file an appeal.When Bhushan sought details of the names deleted after SIR, EC said it can be easily verified by the NGO by comparing the Jan 2025 voter list and the final voter list published on Oct 1. Bhushan said it would be a very tedious exercise for the petitioner when the requisite information can be provided within minutes by the EC.When Bhushan continued to object to the way SIR was conducted, the bench said, “We cannot be conducting a roving inquiry into the finalisation of electoral rolls by EC in exercise of its statutory duties. Our aim was to facilitate the poll panel in conducting the exercise smoothly and transparently.”
