Supreme Court Questions ECI on 65 Lakh Voter Deletions in Bihar Electoral Roll

Speedy Summary

• The Supreme Court of India asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) too submit detailed particulars by August 9 in response to an request seeking reasons for deleting 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral roll.
• The draft electoral roll was published on August 1 as part of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) ahead of elections in Bihar.
• Deletions were cited as due to deaths, permanent migration, duplication, or untraceability but lacked individual explanations constituency-wise or booth-wise.
• Applicants demanded full publication of Assembly constituency and booth-level lists detailing electors omitted, along with reasons for omission against each name.
• Specific data shows significant voter omissions marked “not recommended” by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), including 10.6% in Darbhanga and 12.6% in Kaimur districts.
• ECI press release indicated breakdown: 22 lakh deceased voters, seven lakh duplicates, and the remaining permanently migrated/untraceable cases; however, formal explanations remain unpublished.
• Concerns raised over disenfranchisement risks due to lack of openness preventing affected voters from exercising legal remedies under Section 21A.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The deletion of approximately 65 lakh names from Bihar’s electoral rolls raises critical questions about transparency and voter rights during a politically sensitive revision. While the Election Commission has provided aggregate data explaining omissions-citing deaths or address changes-the absence of specific details at constituency or booth levels undermines public trust. Transparency is crucial not only to verify legitimate removal but also to prevent unwarranted disenfranchisement that could affect democratic participation.

The application highlights procedural deficiencies that may harm electoral inclusivity if voters do not have access to legal recourse over deleted entries-a concern amplified by India’s reliance on robust polling practices for legitimacy at state and national levels. This case underscores the necessity for comprehensive documentation and dialog between institutions like ECI, judiciary platforms handling public grievances, and affected citizen groups-a balance essential for accountability while ensuring lawful revisions.

Read more hear.