Tue Oct 07 04:53:49 UTC 2025: **Supreme Court Scrutinizes Bihar Voter List Revision, Questions Transparency**
**New Delhi, October 7, 2025** – The Supreme Court is closely examining the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted in Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI), raising concerns about transparency and the exclusion of voters.
During a hearing today, the court questioned the ECI and petitioners, Association of Democratic Reforms, about the process that led to the inclusion of 2.1 million new voters and the exclusion of 366,000 from the final voter list. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that the final list should be compared to the original January 2025 list to identify discrepancies.
Justice Surya Kant questioned the petitioners’ motivations, asking who they were representing if not the directly aggrieved individuals. He suggested focusing on specific constituencies to demonstrate voter deletions.
The ECI, represented by Adv. Rakesh Dwivedi, asserted its authority over electoral roll revisions and challenged the claims of impropriety. Dwivedi stated that the final voter list had been shared with political parties and that no affected party had filed a complaint. “Not a single affected party has complained, the problem is only for NGOs in Delhi,” he said.
The court pressed the ECI to be more transparent about the names and details of those excluded from the list, while also urging the petitioners to provide specific cases of wrongful deletion. The ECI objected to the presentation of arguments and documents without proper affidavits.
The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings for October 9th and 14th to allow the ECI to respond to the allegations and for a more detailed examination of the case. The court acknowledged the importance of transparency in the electoral process.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has been a point of contention, with some alleging disproportionate exclusion of minorities and women. However, initial data analysis suggests that Muslim voters were not disproportionately impacted by the revision. The ECI maintains that the revision was necessary to clean up the electoral roll, primarily due to migration, deaths, and multiple enrollments.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the ECI’s constitutional mandate to conduct elections and the right of citizens to be included in electoral rolls, particularly with the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections on the horizon.
First Piper 