In a development that’s sparked both legal scrutiny and political finger-pointing, the Supreme Court of India has taken center stage in the ongoing controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. On August 22, 2025, the country’s highest court expressed visible surprise—and some frustration—at the apparent lack of action from political parties in helping voters whose names had been deleted from the rolls reclaim their franchise.
The court’s intervention comes at a critical time for Bihar, with Assembly elections looming and the first major revision of voter lists in the state since 2003 underway. The scale of the revision has been staggering: according to the Election Commission, approximately 65 lakh (6.5 million) voters have been dropped from the draft rolls published on August 1, 2025. The total number of registered voters in Bihar has shrunk from 7.9 crore to 7.24 crore as a result of this exercise, as reported by Times Now News.
What’s especially striking is the Supreme Court’s reaction to the political parties’ passivity. Despite the presence of over 1.68 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) representing various parties across the state, only two formal objections had been filed regarding the deletions, even though opposition parties have been vocally critical of the process. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, did not mince words, as highlighted by The Times of India: "We will allow online submission of claims of deleted voters with Aadhaar card or any other acceptable documents for Bihar SIR." The justices went further, ordering all 12 political parties in Bihar to direct their workers to actively assist affected citizens in filing the necessary forms and to file a status report by the next hearing on September 8, 2025.
The court’s directives are clear: claim forms for those excluded from the rolls can be submitted online, using an Aadhaar card or any one of 11 other acceptable documents. This move aims to make the process more accessible and transparent, especially for those who may have been caught off guard by the deletions. The bench also instructed election officials to provide acknowledgment receipts to party agents submitting claim forms on behalf of excluded voters in person, ensuring a paper trail and accountability.
Transparency, the Supreme Court emphasized, is key to restoring voter confidence. On August 14, 2025, in response to an earlier court order, the Election Commission published the details of all 65 lakh deleted voters on district magistrates’ websites. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar explained that this was done "within 56 hours of the top court directive" to enhance the openness of the process. He also pointed out that Electoral Registration Officers and Booth Level Officers are responsible for the accuracy of the rolls, which are shared both digitally and physically with parties and the public.
The revision process is not yet complete. The draft rolls remain open for claims and objections until September 1, 2025, giving those affected a narrow window to contest their exclusion. The final rolls are due for publication on September 30, 2025, setting the stage for what could be a contentious run-up to the state elections.
But how did this situation arise in the first place? The SIR was initiated as a comprehensive update to the voter rolls, the first such effort in more than two decades. However, its execution has been anything but smooth. The process has been challenged in the Supreme Court by a coalition of petitioners, including RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam. Their core grievance: the exclusion of such a vast number of voters, which they argue is unlawful and potentially disenfranchising.
During hearings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Manoj Jha, argued that the removal of 65 lakh voters was not just a clerical error but a violation of citizens’ rights. Prashant Bhushan, another prominent lawyer, accused the Election Commission of making the rolls non-searchable, thus hampering transparency. The court, however, countered concerns about documentation, noting that "everybody possesses some certificate." Still, the justices made it clear that if any illegality or procedural lapse is proven, the results of the revision could be set aside entirely—a rare but significant check on the electoral process.
While the Election Commission has maintained that the revision is above board, it has also acknowledged the political sensitivities at play. Chief Election Commissioner Kumar defended the exercise, describing it as a “matter of grave concern” that some parties were spreading “misinformation.” He stressed that India’s election system is a “multi-layered, decentralised construct as envisaged by law.” The EC further informed the court that, in the ongoing revision, 85,000 previously excluded voters had already submitted claims to be reinstated, and over 2 lakh new voters had registered.
Yet the court’s surprise at the political parties’ lack of engagement remains a central theme. As reported by The Times of India and corroborated by Times Now News, the bench was taken aback that, despite their public complaints, parties had not mobilized their considerable ground networks to help affected voters file objections or claims. The justices ordered the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that political parties are "impleaded"—that is, formally made part of the proceedings—so that they are accountable for assisting citizens in this critical democratic process.
The stakes are high for all involved. For the Election Commission, the credibility of the country’s electoral machinery is on the line. For political parties, especially those in opposition, the episode is a test of their commitment to protecting the rights of their constituents. And for millions of ordinary voters in Bihar, the outcome will determine whether their voices will be heard at the ballot box come election day.
As the legal and political drama continues, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court’s active oversight has brought much-needed scrutiny to the process, forcing all stakeholders to take their responsibilities seriously. With the next hearing scheduled for September 8, and the final electoral rolls due by the end of September, Bihar’s voter list revision remains a story to watch closely—one that could have far-reaching implications for the health of Indian democracy.
