Free legal aid for those appealing SIR exclusion, says Supreme Court demanding clarity and authentic data from the Election Commission
NEW DELHI — A major controversy has erupted in Bihar following the release of the revised voter list after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI), with opposition parties and civil rights advocates alleging that thousands of Muslim names have been unfairly deleted from the rolls. The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, which has sought accurate information and transparency from both sides.
On Thursday, the court said it was imperative to ensure right to appeal to persons stated to have been excluded from final list. It directed the state’s Legal Services Authority to offer free aid in this instance.
“They will collect information with reference to persons who have been excluded from the final list… offer services to draft appeals and free legal aid counsel,” the Supreme Court said.
According to the petitioners, the deletions appear to be targeted and discriminatory, raising serious concerns about voter suppression ahead of upcoming elections. Senior advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan, and Vrinda Grover appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while Rakesh Dwivedi represented the ECI.
Prashant Bhushan argued that there was a lack of transparency in the revision process. “They have everything in computerised form, yet there is no public data on who was excluded from the draft list. That is why we are spending hundreds of hours investigating,” he told the court.
He further added that over 3.66 lakh people were excluded after the revision, but the list of excluded names has not been shared, making verification difficult. “The voter list should be made available in machine-readable format. What confidentiality is involved in this? Everyone wants a clean and fair voter list,” Bhushan said.
Vrinda Grover, another lawyer for the petitioners, questioned the Election Commission’s decision to freeze the rolls by 17 October under Section 23(3). “Why are we being told when we can or cannot file an appeal? The process must remain open if natural justice is to be upheld,” she argued.
The Election Commission, however, rejected all allegations. Lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said the affidavits filed by the petitioners and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) contained “completely false and fabricated narratives.”
“They are claiming that many Muslim names have been removed, but how do they know when they don’t even have the data?” Dwivedi told the court. “The woman whose name they mentioned as being removed is still there in both the draft and final lists. Even the booth number cited was wrong.”
He added that the petitioner did not submit the voter enumeration form and gave incorrect details. “The individual is listed in Part 63, not Part 52 as claimed,” Dwivedi clarified.
The court emphasised the need for factual accuracy. “Correct information should be provided first; incorrect information is not acceptable to us either,” the court remarked.
Justice Bagchi noted that appeals can only be filed if there are legitimate grounds for deletion. “The first ground is a violation of natural justice,” he said.
The Election Commission urged the court to direct those whose names were allegedly deleted to apply for inclusion within five days. “After that, the doors will be closed,” Dwivedi said, adding that the affidavit submitted by petitioners was dated the 6th and should have been accompanied by an inclusion request.
The court questioned the Election Commission’s verification process, asking, “How can we know the authenticity of this document now? When they are not an investigating agency, how can they claim that the facts are wrong?”
The bench added, “If the petitioners had stated earlier that their appeal had not yet been decided, we would have supported them. But that is not the case.”
Towards the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that the Bihar experience could serve as a lesson for future elections. “Maybe Bihar’s experience will make the Election Commission wiser. Next time, we are confident that you will bring improvement,” the court said.
Despite the Election Commission’s firm denial, the allegations have sparked unease among Muslim communities in Bihar, many of whom fear disenfranchisement. A resident of Gaya, Mohammad Shahid, said, “My entire family has voted for decades, but this time, my wife’s name was missing. When we asked, no one could explain why.”
Opposition leaders have also expressed anger over the issue. A member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) said, “The systematic removal of Muslim names cannot be ignored. This is not an error; this is an attempt to silence a community.”
While the Supreme Court continues to hear the case, the controversy has once again brought into focus the importance of fair electoral practices and the need to safeguard the voting rights of every citizen, regardless of religion or background.
