BIHAR SIR | NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH REASONS FOR EXCLUSION FROM DRAFT ELECTORAL ROLL, ELECTION COMMISSION INFORMS SUPREME COURT:

In the ongoing dispute over the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that under the existing statutory framework, it is neither required to publish a separate list of individuals excluded from the draft electoral roll nor to furnish reasons for their exclusion.

The submissions came in response to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which had sought directions for the publication of a complete assembly constituency- and booth-wise list of approximately 65 lakh electors whose Enumeration Forms were not submitted, along with reasons for non-submission such as death, permanent migration, duplication, or being untraceable. ADR had also requested disclosure of the names of electors whose forms were marked as “not recommended” by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The application followed the publication of the draft voters’ list on August 1, 2025, which reportedly excluded a substantial number of electors.

On August 6, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to respond to ADR’s plea. In its counter-affidavit, the Commission cited Rules 10 and 11 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to assert that there is no legal obligation to compile or release such a list, nor to provide reasons for exclusion from the draft roll. It clarified that individuals whose names are missing from the draft roll may still apply for inclusion by submitting Form 6 with the declaration specified in Annexure-D of the SIR Order during the claims and objections period from August 1 to September 1, 2025. According to the ECI, such a submission itself implies that the person is neither deceased, permanently relocated, nor untraceable, rendering the disclosure of exclusion reasons unnecessary.

The ECI stressed that exclusion from the draft roll does not amount to deletion from the final electoral roll. The draft roll simply reflects whether the enumeration form of an elector has been received. Given the human involvement in the large-scale process, errors or inadvertent omissions may occur, which is why the Rules provide remedies under Rule 21.

The Commission added that it had already shared booth-level lists of electors reported as deceased, missing, migrated, or whose forms were not received, with political parties. This was intended to assist in targeted outreach to ensure that eligible voters were not left out, and was publicised in a press note issued on July 20. The ECI alleged that ADR had acted with mala fides in filing the application, accusing the NGO of attempting to malign the institution through false narratives in the media. It requested the Court to consider imposing heavy costs on ADR.

Addressing ADR’s concern that some persons not recommended by BLOs were included in the draft, the ECI explained that BLO inputs are only advisory and subject to cross-verification by Electoral Registration Officers. Moreover, since the process of submitting eligibility documents is ongoing during the claims and objections period, the BLO recommendations at this stage carry limited significance.

In a separate affidavit, the ECI detailed its efforts to ensure no eligible voter is excluded. These included house-to-house visits by BLOs, extensive publicity through 246 Hindi newspapers, SMS and social media campaigns, and the deployment of 2.5 lakh volunteers. The Commission also reiterated that no deletion from the draft roll would occur without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned order by the competent authority.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the petitions challenging the Bihar SIR exercise on August 12.