“No Name Is Deleted Without Issuance Of A Notice”: Election Commission Tells Supreme Court Defending Special Intensive Revision In Bihar

The affidavit states that the revision is being conducted “to update and purify the electoral roll and to ensure that no eligible voter is left behind particularly those who have shifted residence attained voting age or have died.” It maintains that the process is being carried out in accordance with Rule 31 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 and forms part of the constitutional and statutory duty of the Commission.

Citing its powers under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it has been stated in the counter affidavit, “The said revision exercise is being undertaken in the State of Bihar for ensuring the purity of electoral rolls and also to include names of such eligible persons who may have been left out earlier.”

Refuting the allegation that names of eligible voters have been arbitrarily deleted, the affidavit states, “No eligible voter who is presently residing at an address and is eligible under the law is being deleted. The deletion is only proposed where after due verification the person is found to be shifted dead or duplicate.”

On the issue regarding documentation requirements for verification, the Commission clarifies that the documents listed in its June 24, 2025 order were not exhaustive. It states,
“The documents mentioned in the aforesaid order were purely illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. Any document issued by a government authority that can establish residence is accepted.”

In light of the Supreme Court’s oral observations dated July 10, 2025, it has been stated, "It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 17.07.2025, has required the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider the following documents for the purposes of the Special Intensive Revision ("SIR"), 2025: (i)Aadhaar Card, (ii) EPIC, and (iii) Ration Card. It is respectfully submitted that, in addition to the legal concerns already articulated hereinabove, these documents are, in fact, already being considered by the Commission for the limited purpose of identity during the SIR process."

The affidavit states that Booth Level Officers are conducting door-to-door verification and that no name is deleted without proper notice and opportunity to respond, stating, “No name is deleted without issuance of a notice under Form 7. Adequate time is given for reply. If the elector fails to respond only then does the BLO recommend deletion and the ERO takes a decision after proper examination.”

On Aadhaar, the affidavit makes it clear that submission of the document is not mandatory, adding, “It is reiterated that Aadhaar is not being insisted upon as a compulsory requirement It is merely one of the acceptable documents that can be submitted by the elector to establish ordinary residence.”

It is also submitted that door-to-door verification is being conducted by BLOs, whose reports are placed before the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for final determination. The affidavit states, “The BLO physically verifies the elector and also takes into account any objection or claim before making a final recommendation The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) takes the final decision after examining the BLO’s report.” It adds, “Recognised political parties were informed through letters dated 24.06.2025 and 28.06.2025 Booth Level Agents were permitted to accompany BLOs during the field verification process. The Commission has taken all possible measures to ensure a transparent fair and participative revision process.”

It has further been stated that advertisements and public announcements were widely used to inform voters, including those temporarily outside Bihar. Multiple annexures, including field instructions, press communications, enumerator data, sample forms, and correspondence with political parties accompany the counter affidavit.

Concluding the affidavit, the Commission asserts, “All actions of the Commission are taken in furtherance of its constitutional mandate to conduct free and fair elections.”

The petitions, filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam, challenge the legality, timing, and process of the SIR. Moitra’s petition terms the exercise “illegal, unconstitutional, and ultra vires,” citing violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

During the hearing on July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court took note of the concerns raised over the electoral roll revision and observed, “An important question has been raised in these petitions before this Court, which goes to the very root of functioning of a democratic republic that is a country. The question is of the right to vote.”

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, had submitted, “Aadhaar card cannot be used as proof of citizenship...Each document has its limited purpose and is valid only for that. Aadhaar can be issued to non-citizens who are residents of India.”

The Bench had asked the ECI to consider Aadhaar, EPIC (voter ID), and ration cards for the purpose of the ongoing revision.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on July 28, 2025.

Cause Title: Association For Democratic Reforms & Ors. V. Election Commission of India (W.P.(C) No. 640/2025)