The top judges of Supreme Court of India (SC) on Wednesday flagged a surprising development — despite widespread apprehensions of mass voter-deletion under the 2025 Election Commission of India (ECI)–led SIR drive in Bihar, not a single voter has come forward to challenge their exclusion from the draft electoral rolls.
This observation came during the hearing of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by groups including Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which had raised alarm over possible disenfranchisement of millions. The bench, comprising Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, took note of the fact that despite earlier fears and even active outreach via paralegal volunteers, zero appeals or objections were filed by those allegedly struck off the rolls.
⚖️ What Led to This Observation
The SIR — or Special Intensive Revision — was launched by the ECI under its statutory powers to update the electoral rolls, remove duplicates, dead entries, and accommodate demographic changes. As part of SIR, the draft voter list was published in August 2025, which flagged roughly 65 lakh electors in Bihar for possible deletion.
Critics — including political parties and civil-society organisations — had raised serious objections. Their concerns included:
- Voters being marked “dead” or “migrated” despite being alive or residing outside but eligible;
- Shift of burden onto voters to prove their eligibility (via forms or documents), possibly affecting illiterate or migrant populations.
- Allegations that SIR could be used as a tool for mass exclusion, especially of marginalized groups, migrant workers and seasonal labourers.
Given these worries, the Court had earlier asked the ECI to adopt a more inclusion-centric approach rather than sweeping exclusions.
🧐 What the Court Found — No Challenges, Few Complaints
During the hearing:
- The bench recalled that after the draft roll’s publication, the court had directed volunteers to help excluded voters file appeals — but none came forward.
- Justice Kant remarked: “We kept on directing… nobody came forward to say I have been excluded.”
- Justice Bagchi added that although deletions had occurred, there was no indication of widespread impact on the ground.
- The bench questioned the petitioners: with widespread media coverage and dissemination of the SIR schedule, including remote regions, could it be argued someone was unaware of the process?
These observations have turned the spotlight on the core of the petitioners’ argument — if no voter felt aggrieved enough to challenge, can one assume mass disenfranchisement was indeed widespread?
📌 What the Petitioners Argue — Process Is Faulty, Not Just Numbers
For their part, petitioners led by senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP) and Prashant Bhushan (for ADR) reiterated that the SIR process shifts undue burden onto citizens and is unprecedented in scale.
Their objections include:
- A structurally flawed process — requiring voters to self-submit forms or documents, rather than door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
- Risk that illiterate, migrant or marginalized voters might fail to respond or be unaware — leading to wrongful deletion.
- Lack of legal obligation on the ECI to publish a list of excluded names with reasons, making transparency and verification difficult.
They argue that silent deletions, even without formal challenges, represent a grave threat to voters’ fundamental right to franchise under Articles 324, 326 of the Constitution.
🔄 What It Means for Election Integrity & Voter Trust
This surprising development — no challenge despite massive deletions — raises critical questions about the electoral process, voter awareness, and the fairness of voter-list revisions:
- Does “no challenge” imply acceptance — or does it reflect disenchantment, lack of awareness, or fear among affected voters?
- Could logistical barriers (lack of documents, literacy, migration) have prevented rightful voters from filing objections — thus making “silence” not an indicator of correctness?
- What does this mean for trust in democratic institutions when tens of lakhs of deletions occur and yet not a single person comes forward publicly?
These are questions the SC must consider carefully before giving its final ruling.
🧭 What’s Next: Supreme Court, ECI & Voter Rights
The case — Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India (PIL WP(C) No. 640/2025) — is ongoing. The bench is scheduled to deliberate further, examine procedural fairness, and assess whether the SIR — as implemented — stands up to constitutional scrutiny.
Pending issues include:
- Whether the SIR process must be modified to ensure better documentation and support, especially for vulnerable and migrant voters.
- Whether the ECI should publish separate lists of excluded voters with clear reasons and guarantee effective appeals.
- Oversight to ensure no legitimate voter loses franchise due to technicalities.
