Introduction
In a significant ruling concerning the integrity of the electoral process, the Supreme Court of India on October 9, 2025, declined to issue a blanket order on the alleged wrongful exclusions from the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) voter list. Instead, the Bench directed that affected individuals should file appeals before the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar with the assistance of the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).
The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies in affidavits filed by certain petitioners claiming wrongful exclusion from the electoral roll. The Court held that a case-by-case appeal process, supported by free legal aid, was the appropriate remedy rather than a broad judicial directive.
Background: The Bihar SIR and the Challenge
The matter arose out of a batch of petitions, including one filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and other concerned individuals, questioning the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s voter list by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The controversy began after the ECI published a draft electoral roll on August 1, 2025, from which 65 lakh names were reportedly deleted. The petitioners alleged that the deletions were arbitrary and violated the right to vote of thousands of eligible citizens.
On August 14, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to upload the list of deleted voters for public scrutiny. Subsequently, on August 22, the Court intervened again, allowing the use of Aadhaar cards as identity proof for re-enrolment, after the ECI initially restricted the process to eleven other ID documents.
By the time the SIR concluded on September 30, Bihar’s total registered voters had fallen from 7.89 crore in June 2025 to 7.42 crore, reducing the number of deletions from 65 lakh to 47 lakh.
Court Proceedings: Discrepancies in Affidavits
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, raised serious concerns about false and misleading affidavits submitted by individuals claiming wrongful exclusion.
He presented examples showing that one petitioner’s affidavit contained incorrect voter ID details, mismatched polling booth numbers, and non-existent annexures. “This affidavit is completely false,” Dwivedi told the Court. “The person claimed to be a resident of Bihar on the draft voter list but was not there at all. Even the EPIC number and polling booth mentioned do not match.”
Dwivedi further accused the petitioner-NGO of perjury, stating that such affidavits were being used to “set political narratives” rather than to address genuine grievances. He noted that ADR’s updated affidavit had reduced its claim of large-scale deletion from 65 lakh names to just 130 cases, out of which several were first-time applicants rather than deleted voters.
“These political parties just want to set a narrative. If there are genuine cases, they can file appeals within five days,” he said.
Bench’s Observations: Legal Aid, Not Blanket Orders
The Bench expressed its reluctance to pass any sweeping directive on voter inclusions or exclusions, noting that individual cases require factual verification by the competent authorities rather than judicial assumption.
“It will not be possible for the Court to examine each and every case. An appeal before the relevant authority is the way out,” the Court observed.
The Court instead directed that the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA) must take proactive steps to assist all affected individuals in filing their appeals.
It further ordered that each village must have a list of booth-level officers and para-legal volunteers available to help citizens with their appeal documentation. The Legal Services Authority is also required to collate the data on the appeals filed and submit a status report to the Supreme Court within one week.
“The executive chairman of BSLSA shall communicate to all local secretaries to provide free legal aid, counsel, and para-legal volunteers to help the excluded persons file appeals. Facilities for drafting and filing appeals must be provided, and status reports submitted to this Court within one week,” the Bench directed.
The same directions were made mutatis mutandis applicable to persons excluded from the draft voter list as well.
Debate Between ECI, Petitioners, and Experts
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, argued that the process followed by the ECI during the Bihar SIR deviated substantially from the standard procedures adopted in 2003.
He pointed out that earlier revisions were conducted through door-to-door verification, treating previous lists as base records. “This time, the ECI demanded new enumeration forms, and many eligible voters were deleted without verification,” he said.
However, Justice Kant countered that procedural changes were justified due to technological advancements, stating that the 2025 process could not be expected to replicate methods used two decades ago.
*Social activist Yogendra Yadav, participating in the hearing, highlighted alleged anomalies in the final voter roll, including duplicate entries, missing names, and irrational household data.
He claimed that the final roll contained 45,000 “gibberish” names, 4.21 lakh zero-numbered houses, and over 5.2 lakh duplicate entries, some showing 800+ voters in a single house. Yadav also warned that the gender ratio of voters had significantly worsened after the SIR, reversing the gains of the past decade.
“The number of women voters fell drastically after SIR, widening the gender gap from 7 lakh in January to 16 lakh now,” Yadav alleged.
In response, Dwivedi objected to these submissions, stating that such unverified claims should not be entertained without affidavits. “This is not a lecture room,” he retorted.
Court’s Reactions to Data Disputes
Both Justices Kant and Bagchi expressed displeasure over the lack of due diligence by some petitioners and emphasized that the Court’s intervention must rest on verified facts, not general allegations.
“We are seeing too much of passion and too little of reason,” Justice Bagchi remarked, underscoring the need for petitioners to provide concrete evidence of deletions and the filing of actual appeals.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for another petitioner, argued that the timeline for filing appeals should be extended since the voter rolls freeze on October 17, leaving insufficient time for those wrongfully excluded.
The Court, however, maintained that the appeal process remains the appropriate and accessible remedy, particularly with the involvement of free legal aid volunteers.
Supreme Court’s Directions
Summarizing its interim order, the Supreme Court directed:
- No blanket relief on deletions or inclusions from Bihar’s voter list.
- Affected persons may file appeals before the Chief Electoral Officer under existing legal provisions.
- Bihar State Legal Services Authority shall ensure free legal aid through lawyers and para-legal volunteers in every district.
- Each village must have contact lists of booth-level officers and legal aid volunteers to facilitate appeal filing.
- BSLSA shall submit a status report within one week.
- The case will be listed again on October 16, 2025, for further hearing.
Significance of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s order strikes a balance between protecting individual voting rights and preserving the institutional integrity of the Election Commission.
By declining a blanket directive, the Court avoided judicial overreach while ensuring administrative accountability through the involvement of legal services authorities.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of verified evidence and procedural fairness in election-related disputes — reminding both petitioners and the ECI that transparency and accessibility remain central to India’s democratic process.
Conclusion
The Bihar SIR case highlights the complex intersection of technology, electoral reforms, and voter rights in India. While the Supreme Court refrained from direct intervention, its directive empowering the Bihar Legal Services Authority to aid citizens ensures that no voter is left unheard.
As the matter returns to Court on October 16, the focus will likely shift to how efficiently appeals are processed and whether the ECI and State authorities can restore public confidence in the electoral system.
Also Read
