Expressing surprise that 1.6 lakh Booth Level Agents filed only two objections, the Supreme Court bench asked political parties to actively assist excluded voters in Bihar.
BY PC Bureau
In the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that persons excluded from the draft electoral roll may submit applications for inclusion through online mode, ruling that physical submission of forms is not mandatory. The Court also clarified that applicants may furnish either Aadhaar cards or any of the 11 identity documents already specified by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi further directed all 12 recognised political parties in Bihar to instruct their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to assist excluded voters in their respective booths with filing inclusion forms. The Court also impleaded these parties as respondents in the petitions, wherever they had not already joined as petitioners.
READ: PM Modi Slams RJD, Congress; Warns of ‘Ghuspaithiya’ Threat
Expressing concern over the lack of participation, the bench noted: “What we are surprised to see is that 1.6 lakh BLAs have so far filed only two objections. On the other hand, some political parties submitted that the BLAs are not being permitted to submit their objections.”
The Court also directed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to issue acknowledgement receipts for any physical objections filed by BLAs, after several petitioners complained that receipts were not being given.
#BREAKING Bihar SIR | Voters Excluded From Draft Rolls Can Submit Applications Online With Aadhaar Card : Supreme Court |@DebbyJain #SupremeCourt #BiharSIR #ECI #ElectionCommissionOfIndia https://t.co/Ebnflpibp7
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 22, 2025
Election Commission’s Stand
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, informed the Court that a compliance affidavit had been filed. He said that lists of excluded voters — with reasons for exclusion such as death, migration or duplication — had already been published online and displayed at polling booths, as directed by the Court on August 14. These lists, he added, were also shared with BLAs of political parties.
Dwivedi asserted that:
- Over 2 lakh applications for inclusion had already been received.
- No recognised political party had filed objections against deletions.
- Allegations of mass exclusion were “bogus stories” meant to create fear for political purposes.
“It is the duty of the political parties to come forward and assist the Election Commission in completing this exercise. But they are not cooperating,” Dwivedi said.
When Dwivedi argued that “no political party has come before the Court,” Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi disagreed. Sibal pointed out he was representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, while Singhvi said he was appearing for a petition jointly filed by the INC, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, CPI, and NCP, among others.
Petitioners’ Concerns
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), highlighted that many excluded voters were migrant workers outside the state who may struggle to file forms. He added that not all parties had BLAs in every constituency:
“The biggest opposition party is RJD. They have BLAs in only half of constituencies.”
READ: Huge Win for Dog Lovers: SC Orders Strays to Be Sterilised and Released
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for ADR) also raised doubts about the legality of the SIR process itself, claiming BLOs were still refusing to accept Aadhaar as a standalone document. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for a voter organisation, said BLOs continued to insist on one of the 11 documents specified in the SIR order, even when Aadhaar was produced. Advocate Faouzia Shakil requested an extension of the September 1 deadline, noting that the exclusion lists were only published on August 19 and that BLAs were not receiving acknowledgement receipts for their filings.
Court’s Directions and Observations
The bench suggested that to remove confusion, it would allow excluded voters to apply online using Aadhaar or other documents such as matriculation certificates. “Let them submit their application forms, be it with Aadhaar card or matriculation certificates,” Justice Kant observed.
Dwivedi, however, urged patience, saying crores of documents were being processed:
“Please wait for some time… repose some trust in the EC.”
Background of the Case
The matter arises from a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s special intensive revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls ahead of the Assembly elections in November.
- July 28: The SC refused to stay publication of the draft rolls but urged ECI to consider Aadhaar and EPIC for inclusion.
- July 29: The Court was told that up to 65 lakh voters could be excluded; it warned against “en masse exclusion.”
- August 6: ADR alleged that ECI failed to disclose reasons for the exclusions.
- August 12–13: Petitioners argued that the SIR was illegal, shifting the burden of proving citizenship onto voters. They even produced two persons wrongly declared “dead” in the draft rolls.
- August 14: The SC directed ECI to publish district-wise lists of 65 lakh excluded voters with reasons, searchable by EPIC numbers, and to publicise that Aadhaar could be furnished for inclusion.
The Court is still to decide on the legality of the SIR exercise itself. Meanwhile, it has sought wider participation, online accessibility, and accountability from both ECI and political parties.
