In the pleas challenging Election Commission's special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged before the Supreme Court today that the ECI has indulged in a malafide exercise by arbitrarily deleting many electors without giving proper reasons and concealing data from the public.

In particular, the counsel claimed that the Election Commission initially uploaded draft electoral rolls on its website with a 'searchability' feature, which enabled people to easily search their names and find out if their names have been deleted. However, a day after Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha) held his press conference alleging vote theft in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment under the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha Constituency, the ECI replaced the file with a version which has no search feature.

"We have no knowledge of any press conference", Justice Surya Kant said in response to Bhushan's claim.

A bench of Justice Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and will continue the hearing tomorrow. While the petitioners have substantially made their submissions, the ECI is set to begin its arguments tomorrow. With reference to Rule 10 and Form 5 of the Registration of Electors' Rules, 1960, the bench has asked both sides to inform tomorrow whether the draft roll was published in the Electoral Registration Office.

The query came in the backdrop of Bhushan's submission that ECI removed the searchability option in the draft electoral rolls published on its website. In this context, Justice Bagchi orally observed that though publication of the draft roll online is a welcome step, as it makes the list widely accessible, the minimum statutory requirement is that the draft roll be published in the Electoral Registration Office (as per Rule 10).

Appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms, Bhushan imputed malafides to the ECI on 4 counts -

- ECI earlier frowned upon such special intensive revision exercise for other states in similar circumstances, but is now carrying it out for Bihar;

- ECI is refusing to accept Aadhaar card, ration card and EPIC cards saying they are not evidence of citizenship, while other documents which are acceptable are not evidence of citizenship either;

- ECI is refusing to publish the names of 65 lakh persons deleted in the draft rolls, alongwith reasons for deletion. "They say they have given booth level list to some booth-level agents of recognized political parties, but why should voter have to go to them to a political party to find out if his name is deleted or not?" Bhushan asked. "If the information is available to them in electronic form and it can be put up on a website, why should they not do so? They say they have exact reasons for deletion - why should they not be on website? This shows malafide intent," he added.

- Initially, the draft roll published by ECI on its website was searchable, but this feature was removed "deliberately" one day after Rahul Gandhi's conference levelling allegations of voter fraud in Karnataka) so that nobody can search the deleted names;

He further argued that citizenship determination is not in the ECI domain. If someone wishes to challenge an elector's citizenship, he must first fill Form 7 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Thereafter, the elector is to be given an effective opportunity to present his case, which is not happening under the Bihar SIR.

In this regard, reference was made to the Lal Babu Hussein case. Bhushan contended that though revision under question in this case was not styled as SIR, but because mass notices were given to many people, the Court said if a person was to be removed from electoral roll, he had to be given notice as to why his citizenship was being suspected and allowed presentation of documents.

Raising questions on the timing of the SIR (ahead of Bihar's Assembly elections), he said that the exercise is "not humanly possible" and completely arbitrary. "Lal Babu Hussein makes it clear that they can't decide citizenship like this...large number of people don't have a single document. Only matriculation certificate is possessed by about 40% people...but in totality, more than 50% don't have a single document. Even assuming that 10% people are to be given notice (as to why their names should or should not be on electoral roll), it means 30,000 people per constituency. They will hear, decide everyone in 20 working days!? When they publish final electoral rolls, there would be no time to challenge because elections would be there...they have achieved fait accompli by finalizing roll in this completely arbitrary manner", Bhushan submitted.

He further reiterated his earlier claim that for 2 districts, 10.6% and 12.6% electors respectively have not been 'recommended' by BLOs. "Some whistleblower gave us this data. In some particular booths, not recommended are more than 90%! This percentage of voters out of 7.24 cr have to be given notice to ask them why they should not be on electoral roll. They have to be heard. In 1 constituency, there are 3 lakh voters. In 20 working days, this has to be done. Even assuming notices are given...what is the basis on which they are 'not recommending'? No rules, no guidelines", Bhushan asserted.

He also claimed that the BLOs have themselves filled the enumeration forms in most cases, and that is how many dead people have found place on the draft roll. "I can guarantee there are not more than 25% people whose enumeration forms have been received with even a single document. BLOs have filled the enumeration forms and signed them!" he said.

It was further alleged that 240 people have been shown in the draft rolls as belonging to the same house/address. In response, Justice Kant agreed, "240 people can't be in one house".

Considering that the hearing is unlikely to get concluded this week, Bhushan lastly beseeched the Court to grant following reliefs as an interim measure: (i) that ECI put out the list of 65 lakhs persons deleted in the draft rolls, alongwith the reasons for deletion, (ii) that ECI make the list of 7.24 crore electors available with searchability function, and (iii) that ECI give the names of persons recommended and not recommended by BLOs.

The bench however indicated that it would like to hear the ECI before passing any order.

For a detailed background, click here.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)