More pleas in SC against Bihar poll roll revision; EC defends move, says process on track

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, social activist Yogendra Yadav and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) have moved the Supreme Court against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the October-November Assembly polls. The EC, however, has reaffirmed its commitment to the exercise, calling it necessary to ensure accurate voter lists.

Advertisement

On June 24, the EC ordered the SIR in Bihar, the first such revision since 2003, to remove ineligible voters and include eligible citizens, citing rapid urbanisation, migration, new voters, unreported deaths and potential foreign nationals on the rolls.

In a statement issued in Patna, the EC dismissed speculation about modifications to the SIR, saying the exercise is proceeding as per the original June 24 instructions. Refuting rumours of alterations, the commission said the revision “is progressing smoothly with strong public participation”.

It said while voters must submit documents by July 25, those who missed the deadline could still be included during the subsequent claims and objections period. It cautioned the public against “misleading statements” by critics who it said had not properly reviewed the SIR order.

In a social media post, the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer confirmed the revision was proceeding as planned, with the draft rolls set to include existing voters whose forms were received on time.

However, concerns over mass disenfranchisement persisted. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed a PIL on Saturday, calling the SIR arbitrary and unconstitutional, alleging violations of fundamental rights and electoral laws. It sought an immediate stay on the process.

Moitra’s petition too argues that the SIR violates constitutional provisions and electoral laws, while PUCL contends the EC has failed to justify the revision’s necessity or mitigate potential harm to voters. Yadav has also demanded an urgent stay, calling the exercise “manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable”.