Supreme Court demands list of Bihar’s 65 lakh deleted voters from ECI, with reasons

• List of deletions, with reasons — such as death, migration, duplication — to be put up online on websites and on social media, as physical copies in panchayat and block development offices

• Lists to be searchable by EPIC and sorted by booth

• Notices to be broadcast on Doordarshan and Air India, and in regional language and English newspapers to say that this is being done

• 11 forms of ID to be accepted, including Aadhaar, and not just seven as done in Jharkhand

Agreeing with petitioners’ apprehensions that the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar (or anywhere else) risks disenfranchising voters unless carried out with care, the Supreme Court today, 14 August, Thursday, ordered that the Election Commission of India must widely share the list of the 65 lakh voters it has removed from its draft list and supply reasons for the deletions.

Notably, on 10 August, the ECI had told the apex court that there is no law requiring it to share the lists separately of those marked dead or migrated, nor the reasons for deletions.

However, the appearance in person of four ‘dead’ individuals on 12 August and the arrival of several more in the capital city to try and plead their continuing existence has certainly put a scanner in the works — and possibly tilted the court of public opinion a tad too, in addition to the judges on the bench.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called it "a gigantic first step" in a post on X.

The Supreme Court, to be fair, had earlier warned the ECI that it might insist on a list if it apprehended the SIR exercise was not being carried out assiduously.

Also amongst the orders today was one asking the ECI to specify the Aadhaar card as a valid identification document, among other identity papers so that there would be a total of 11 valid forms of ID, rather than just the seven the ECI had admitted in the last summary revision in Jharkhand.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, has responded and agreed that the list — which is purportedly already available with the booth-level agents (BLAs) of the various political parties — will be uploaded online, and searchable by Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number. He did, however, lament that the ECI was subjected to an “atmosphere of sharp political hostility”.

The order from the bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also insisted that the list — to be sorted boothwise, as repeatedly demanded by the political parties — be available on the websites of every district electoral officer and chief electoral officer of the relevant state. 

In addition, the bench ordered, the booth-wise lists of excluded voters must be posted for public access by the booth-level officers (BLOs) at either the local panchayat office or the block development office. This posting of physical lists on noticeboards should support cross-checking and redressal, it is hoped, which may be facilitated by the BLAs.

Further, the order calls for the ECI to give widely publicise the posting of the lists by taking out notices in both vernacular and English dailies with high circulation in Bihar, and for them to be broadcast on state media such as Doordarshan and All India Radio. If any district electoral officer has a social media handle, the list must be displayed there as well, the bench directed.

"Transparency is needed about 65 lakh deleted voters to enable people to seek clarification or correction," the bench said.

The nonprofit Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had petitioned for exactly this result when it moved the Supreme Court, a demand the ECI seemed inclined to dismiss because there was no rule requiring it to — never mind that the ECI should be the entity that would strive to assure the nation every citizen's voting rights are safe under its aegis.

On 1 August, the ECI had cited previously registered voters it had removed from draft rolls were excluded due to death (22.34 lakh), having or being "permanently shifted/absent" (36.28 lakh) and being "already enrolled (at more than one places)" (7.01 lakh).

While the ECI had said earlier that people could always file for redressal of any complaints and claimed it had received none from BLAs, the Supreme Court turned the argument back on its head to say, “We don’t want citizens' rights to be dependent on workers of political parties.”

The case has been posted for further hearing on 22 August.

Taking note of the judgement, Jairam Ramesh said, “The Supreme Court has just upheld the Constitution of India in a categorical, convincing, and courageous manner. It is a long struggle to rescue our Republic from the machinations of the PM and his drumbeaters. But today's verdict... is a beacon of hope."

Notably, one of the category of reasons for deletion the Supreme Court noted in its order was "duplication" (what the ECI calls "already enrolled (at more than one place)") — something RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav has been enumerating instances of, emanating from the BJP–NDA camp, for the last few days.

It does appear rather damning for our democracy that the Opposition should so readily find evidence of duplicates and the ECI — with presumably ready access to pan-India records — is unable to match, flag and verify such instances. Hence perhaps Ramesh's apprehension of a 'long struggle'.

The INDIA bloc, in any event, seemed to be already set for that fight, with a three-month, three-phase campaign planned — including a Vote Adhikar Yatra across Bihar.