Introduction
The Supreme Court of India on December 16, 2025, declined to seek a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a newspaper report that alleged large-scale, centrally generated notices for deletion of voters’ names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. The Court emphasised a well-settled principle of judicial procedure—that courts cannot act on media reports unless allegations are formally placed on record through affidavits or supporting material.
The decision came during the hearing of petitions challenging the legality and manner of the SIR process in Bihar, raising significant questions on electoral transparency, decentralisation of voter registration powers, and the evidentiary value of newspaper reports in constitutional litigation.
Background: Allegations of Centralised Issuance of Notices
The controversy arose from a report published in The Indian Express, which claimed that lakhs of pre-filled notices seeking deletion of voter names were generated through a centralised Election Commission portal during the closing phase of the Bihar SIR exercise. According to the report:
- Notices appeared on the logins of local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
- Although the notices bore the names of EROs, they were allegedly not generated by them.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) empowers only the constituency-level ERO to issue such notices under Section 23.
- The notices were reportedly pre-populated with reasons such as death, migration, or duplication.
While the report clarified that these notices did not automatically result in mass deletions, it raised concerns about centralised intervention in a legally localised electoral process.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Prashant Bhushan’s Submissions
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), relied on the newspaper report to argue that the alleged centralised issuance of notices was illegal and unconstitutional. He described the allegations as extremely serious, stating that:
- Over 10 lakh voters were allegedly issued deletion notices.
- Such centralised action violated Section 23 of the RP Act, which vests the power of issuing notices exclusively with EROs.
- The report also noted that the ECI had not responded to queries raised by the journalist.
Bhushan urged the Court to call for an explanation from the Election Commission, arguing that the matter impacted the integrity of the electoral roll and the right to vote, a core democratic right.
Election Commission’s Response
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India, strongly objected to reliance on newspaper reports. He submitted that:
- The Court cannot require constitutional authorities to respond to media publications.
- If the petitioners wished to pursue the allegation, they must place verified material on record through an affidavit.
- The claims in the report were factually incorrect, and all notices were issued by District Election Officers, not centrally by the ECI.
Dwivedi further argued that the petitions had relied excessively on unverified newspaper reports, leading to prolonged arguments unsupported by formal evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to seek a response from the Election Commission solely on the basis of the newspaper report.
Courts Cannot Be Swayed by Media Reports
The CJI made it clear that judicial directions cannot be issued merely because an allegation appears in the media, even if the publication is widely respected. He observed:
- Courts can call for responses only when allegations are formally brought on record, typically through affidavits.
- Newspaper reports often rely on unnamed sources and qualified expressions such as “it is learnt”, which cannot substitute legal evidence.
- While acknowledging the credibility of The Indian Express and its journalists, the Court emphasised that reports may be fully correct, partially correct, or incorrect.
The Bench reiterated that procedural discipline is essential, especially in cases involving constitutional authorities like the Election Commission.
Remarks by the Solicitor General
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in another matter, interjected to remark that when a public-spirited person receives information from a political leader, the appropriate course would be to advise the leader to file a petition directly, rather than litigating indirectly.
The CJI responded by stating that the person who allegedly provided the information would likely come forward to file a petition if the allegations were genuine.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
1. Evidentiary Value of Newspaper Reports
The ruling reinforces a long-standing judicial principle: newspaper reports are not evidence by themselves. While courts may take judicial notice of undisputed facts, serious allegations—particularly those involving statutory violations—must be supported by:
- Affidavits
- Documentary evidence
- Verified material placed on record
This approach prevents courts from being drawn into controversies based on speculative or incomplete information.
2. Protection of Institutional Autonomy
By refusing to summon an explanation from the ECI without formal pleadings, the Court protected the institutional autonomy of constitutional bodies, ensuring they are not compelled to respond to every media allegation without due process.
3. Electoral Law and Decentralisation
The case also brings attention to the decentralised structure of electoral administration under the RP Act. While the Court did not rule on the merits of the allegations, it left the door open for future scrutiny—provided the claims are properly substantiated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to seek a response from the Election Commission on the basis of a newspaper report underscores the importance of procedural rigour in constitutional litigation. While concerns regarding voter roll revisions and electoral transparency are undeniably significant, the Court made it clear that media reports alone cannot trigger judicial intervention.
The decision serves as a reminder that serious allegations affecting democratic processes must be backed by formal evidence, ensuring that courts remain forums of law, not speculation. Should the allegations regarding the Bihar SIR exercise be supported by affidavits or documentary proof, the matter may yet receive substantive judicial consideration.
Also Read
