Supreme Court Directs ECI to Publish Names of 65 Lakh Deleted Voters in Bihar's SIR with Reasons for Exclusion

Case Name:

Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors v. Election Commission of India (Public Interest Litigation challenging Bihar SIR electoral roll revision)

Date of Order / Judgment

14 August 2025 – the Supreme Court passed its interim order directing ECI to make public the list of deleted voters and reasons for exclusion .

Summary of the Case

Background: On 24 June 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, requiring documentation not universally held—like Aadhaar, voter ID, or ration cards—causing concerns about mass disenfranchisement .

Contestation: Multiple petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, challenged the SIR, arguing that it was legally flawed, arbitrary, and likely to disenfranchise large numbers of vulnerable voters without due process .

SC’s Interim Ruling:

Directed ECI to publish—by 19 August—a district-wise, booth-level, searchable (by EPIC number) list of roughly 65 lakh voters omitted from the draft roll, along with specific reasons such as death, migration, or duplication .

These lists are to be made available online on the District and State Chief Electoral Officer websites, physically displayed at booth-level offices and panchayat/block development offices, and widely publicized via newspapers, radio, TV, and social media in simple, accessible language .

The interim order explicitly allowed affected individuals to submit claims for re-inclusion using Aadhaar along with EPIC as proof of identity, expanding on earlier limits of acceptable documentation .

The next hearing was scheduled for 22 August 2025 to monitor compliance and further proceedings .

Observations of the Supreme Court

Emphasized fairness, stating that deletion from voter lists could deprive citizens of franchise rights and must follow transparent procedures .

Noted that each individual should be able to independently verify if they’ve been deleted—and know why—for instance: “If Poonam Devi has been omitted, Poonam Devi must be able to know that she… why she has been deleted,” Justice Surya Kant remarked .

Stressed that transparency is key to restoring voter confidence and ensuring accountability—that deletion information should not be accessible only via political parties .