ECI claims Bihar additions are ‘new’ voters, and deleted voters were ‘informed’

The Supreme Court resumed hearing the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar on Tuesday and posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday, 9 October, observing that there was some confusion between the figures in the draft list and the final list, which needed to be cleared by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The draft list of voters released on 1 August had deleted 65 lakh voters from the 7.89 crore who figured in the list after a summary revision in January. After deletions, the draft list contained 7.24 crore voters, covering 88 per cent of the adult population in the state.

In the final list, following objections and scrutiny, the ECI claims to have deleted 3.66 lakh more voters from the draft list, taking the total number of deletions to over 68 lakhs. However, the ECI also claimed to have added 21.5 lakh ‘new’ voters to the draft list, taking the total number of voters to 7.42 crore or 90.7 per cent of the state’s adult population.

In the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, arguments were confined to the additions and deletions made by ECI. Petitioners argued that they are in the dark as to whether the 21.5 lakh additions include voters who did not make it to the draft list, objected, and have been re-enlisted.

Similarly, the petitioners have no clue about the 3.66 lakh additional deletions and the grounds thereof. The Supreme Court had directed the ECI to release the list of the 65 lakh voters deleted under the first phase of SIR. But despite that order, the ECI failed to release the list of 3.66 lakh voters deleted, the petitioners pointed out.

In response, Rakesh Dwivedi and Maninder Singh, senior advocates representing the ECI, told the Supreme Court that all the deleted voters had been ‘given’ the order. They also told the court that most of the additions are new voters.

The petitioners contested the claims and argued that deleted voters are actually in the dark. The rules, they pointed out, required the voters who objected to their names being deleted to be heard and the ECI to judge the objections on merit and pass a ‘speaking order’ citing why the objections were rejected. 

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan cited the example of one such voter who had objected to his name not featuring in the draft list but whose objection remained unheard. He told the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that he was in a position to submit affidavits of at least 65 such voters, alleging that lakhs of voters have actually been disenfranchised.

Rakesh Dwivedi told the court, “Nobody has filed complaint with EC till date. It is just these individuals in Delhi and ADR. They are not concerned with elections. Based on time schedule under the Act, the election has been fixed in two phases...it is to be notified by the Governor…final list has been notified. Draft roll also available. Bare comparison will show who has been deleted. Till today, none of the petitioners has amended their petition to assail the final list”.

Dwivedi also sought to impress upon the court that now that the electoral process has been set in motion, the court should refrain from interfering with the election. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued, "On portal, list says deleted. Persons who are deleted do not get notice that they are deleted. They do not get reason. There is no question of appeal because no one knows. The least they can do is to inform."

Justice Surya Kant said, "If anyone can give us the list of voters out of these 3.66 lakh who have not received orders...we will direct EC to give them orders...everyone has right to appeal," prompting Prashant Bhushan to say, "They should put out these things on website, then no one can deny."  Justice Bagchi observed, "We directed that names would be put up in boards across districts....", to which Bhushan retorted, "Not done."