The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that Bihar’s draft is not included in the electoral role, or there is no legal obligation to prepare or publish a separate list of about 6.5 million names to disclose the reasons for their non-fame.
In its latest affidavit on the controversial special intensive amendment (SIR) in Bihar before the assembly elections later this year, the Commission insisted that the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, and the registration of the rules of the voters, 1960, only requires the publication of the draft role and the provision of the claims and objections, and not to any uniformly uniform willing list.
The ECI argued that the draft does not have non-shelter in the role, not the same as deletion from the electoral rolls. Draft is a work-in-progress document, it has been said, and the names cannot appear for various reasons, such as uncontrolled enumeration form, or errors during house-to-house verification, but these names are open to restoration through the process of claims before the final publication.
The affidavit states, “The draft role suggests that the duly filled calculations of the existing electors have been obtained during the phase of calculation,” Form 6 can be filed with the announcement of claims 6 from August 1 to 2025 by adding the disappeaned persons.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), while combating the allegations that there was a large -scale deletion amount without transparency without an omission, the pole body also accused the NGO of “clearly false and wrong claims” and attempting to mislead the court.
ECI’s affidavit came in response to the allegations by ADR that 65 million names were removed from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls without transparency and deletion of deceased persons, migrants or other categories without disclosure of deletion. The petitioners alleged that political parties were not given a complete access to the draft lists, and in many cases, the booth-level officers (BLOS) included or excluded the names without proper verification of the 11 documents set by the ECI. On 6 August, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant directed ECI to file a “comprehensive answer” for ADR’s petition. The matter will be heard next on 12 August.
In its Saturday night filing, the Commission said that the demand for an ADR’s public list was not in the draft role, as well as the reasons for each lapse, legally baseless. Rules 10 and 11 of RER, it is reported, it is only necessary that the draft rolls are made available for public inspection in the respective areas and supplied to recognized political parties. The affidavit states, “Neither the law nor the guidelines provide for the preparation or sharing of any list of previous voters, whose calculation form has not been received … No such list can be sought by the petitioner.”
The ECI stressed that anyone left from the draft roll has a clear statutory path to include, and not to change the available measures, whether death, permanent migration or unattainable, due to non-ending. While providing the reason, therefore, the draft stages “no practical purpose”, it argued. In addition, under Rule 19 of the RER, the Election Registration Officer (ERO) is obliged to issue a hearing notice in each case, where the inclusion is objected to, the reasons for which phase will be equipped.
Rejecting ADR’s claim that voters cannot verify their position without the reasons for exclusion, ECI said that with an epic card, each electoral can check the status of their enumeration form online by entering their epic numbers. This feature also provides contact details of the relevant booth-tier officer (BLO) for the follow-up.
The affidavit raised before the draft roll published on August 1 to reach the voters whose votes were not received. The booth-level lists of such individuals were shared with recognized political parties through their district presidents and booth-tier agents (BLAS), meetings were held in all the districts, and the lists were also accepted by parties including CPI (ML). In addition, on August 7, Bloos again called polling station-level meetings to share these lists and seek help in contacting such voters. The ECI stated that these measures were promoted in the July 27 press note, which was served on the ADR during the last hearing, which claimed the non-discourse “clearly wrong”.
The Commission also dismissed the ADR allegation as “wrong” that it had departed from the previous practice of light of the published names, clarifying that the example cited by the NGO was a final electoral role from April 2024, not a draft. “The last roll, which will be published after the current head exercise … will have all such information,” said this.
Addressing AdR’s concern on a vast percentage of recommended voters “recommended ‘by Blos, ECI said that the recommendation mechanism was purely administrative, which was aimed at reducing unknown errors, and no effect on eligibility. Input from Blossy” The ideas are “instead of the decisive” and the EROs and the Assistant EROs are subject to the satyapan. No, ECI insisted, without hearing and an argument to the voter.
Accusing the ADR of “continuous attempts to spoil the ECI by creating false stories on digital, print and social media”, the affidavit urged the Supreme Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the NGOs to implement the “heavy cost” and try to mislead the court.
Meanwhile, the dispute has drawn sharp political lines. On Friday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused of opposing the protest as the “names of the intruders” were closing. “The intruders have no right to vote … RJD and Congress are opposing Sir as these names are being removed,” they told them at a rally in Sitamari.
The opposition India Block has alleged that the process is designed to separate marginalized communities before Bihar elections and may set an example for nationwide equal purification.
Opposition India Block said that removed voters should be mentioned separately for “public investigation”. Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, Tejashvi Yadav said at a press conference on Sunday that the ECI should release the list of names removed on a specific basis for “public inquiry” and also surprised whether the deletion into the account of death was supported by any documentary evidence. The NDA said that the ECI was doing its work right and the opposition parties were unnecessarily doing nothing to Hulbalu.
As reported by HT on August 10, the ECI in a separate affidavit, assured the Supreme Court that no eligible voter in Bihar would collide with the roll without prior information, a hearing and an argument order. The Pol Body stressed that “strict directions” were issued to prevent wrongly deletion and a ten-point inclusion scheme associated with special assistance to door-to-door verification, party agents, urban camps, migrant outreach and weak voters was highlighted.
