NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has told the Supreme Court that the law does not require it to either prepare or share any separate list of names of people not included on the draft electoral rolls or publish the reasons for non-inclusion of anyone in the draft electoral rolls.
In a response to a plea seeking reasons for leaving out 65 lakh electors during the special intensive revision (SIR) of poll bound Bihar, the poll panel said, “As neither the law nor guidelines provide for preparation or sharing of any such list of previous electors whose enumeration form is not received for any reason during the enumeration phase, no such list can be sought by the petition as a matter of right”.
In a written response upon a direction of the Supreme Court on a plea by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, the poll body said this position is in harmony with the scheme of the rules, statute, and the guidelines.
The EC contended that no inquiry is done for the inclusion of anyone's name in the draft rolls, and each and every individual whose, enumeration form, has been received, has been included in the draft rolls, without any reservation or exception.
With regard to the individuals whose name, for any reason, do not figure in the draft electoral roll published on August 1, such individuals can submit an application under Form 6 along with the declaration to lodge a claim for inclusion in the draft roll during the claims and objections period between August 1-September 1, 2025, the EC stated.
It is implicit in the filing of Form 6, along with the declaration by an individual, whose name was not included in the draft roll for non-submission of the enumeration form, that he/she claims to be neither deceased, nor permanently shifted, nor untraceable, the EC added.
“Thus, providing reasons for non-inclusion along with the list of names serves no practical purpose as the exercise for all three categories of reasons remains the same, i.e., filing of Form 6 along with declaration,” it said.
The poll panel contended the petitioner's assertion that without the availability of reasons, the individuals whose names are excluded from the draft roll will not be able to seek appropriate recourse under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (RER) is "false, misconceived, and unsustainable".
The EC also pointed out, pursuant to Rule 19 of the RER 1960, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is obligated to give a notice of hearing of each and every claim and objection which is not disposed of in accordance with Rules 17 and 18.
“It is at this stage that the individual who makes an application for inclusion and his/her inclusion is objected to by another individual or the ERO himself, will be served with reasons for deletion of his/her name. After issuing notice, the inquiry is to be conducted by the ERO under Rule 20, to aid in a proper adjudication of claims and objections,” it said.
The EC said that exclusion of a name from the draft electoral roll does not amount to deletion of an individual from the electoral rolls, and the draft roll simply shows that the duly filled enumeration form of existing electors has been received during the enumeration phase.
“But, on account of human involvement in execution of this exercise of scale, there is always a possibility that an exclusion or inclusion might surface due to inadvertence or error,” it said.
The poll body said the law provides a remedy under Rule 21 of the RER, 1960 and pursuant to this rule, if the ERO is of the view that owing to inadvertence or error during preparation, the names of any electors have been left out of the draft roll, the ERO has the power to take remedial action.
“It is for this reason that issuance of reasons for exclusion of names from the draft rolls is not contemplated in the statutory framework governing the preparation of electoral rolls,” it said.
The poll panel also said, prior to the publication of the draft electoral roll, the EC had directed the CEO /DEOs/EROs/BLOs to share, with the political parties, the booth level list of individuals whose enumeration forms were not received due to any reason and seek their assistance for reaching out to them of these electors.
The NGO sought directions for the publication of a separate list of excluded individuals and the disclosure of reasons for their exclusion.
It claimed that over 65 lakh names had been deleted from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls without transparency and without disclosure of whether the deletions related to deceased persons, migrants, or other categories.
In a separate affidavit, the EC said that no eligible voter in Bihar will be removed from the electoral rolls without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order. The poll body emphasised that “strict directions” have been issued to prevent wrongful deletions during the ongoing SIR.
The poll body submitted the draft rolls published on August 1 following house-to-house visits by booth level officers (BLOs) to collect enumeration forms from existing electors.
It added that lists of electors whose forms had not been received were shared with booth level agents of recognised political parties on July 20 -- well before the draft publication, to allow corrective action, and the updated lists were again given to political party representatives later in the process.
On August 6, the court had asked the Election Commission to furnish the details of around 65 lakh electors, left out from the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar by August 9.
The court is set to hear on August 12 the plea challenging the June 24 order of the Election Commission directing for special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court said, instead of en masse exclusion of voters, en masse inclusion should be the goal of the Election Commission as it again suggested the poll panel to include Aadhaar and Voter ID cards as valid documents in the Special intensive Revision of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar.
The top court, however, refused to restrain the Election Commission from publishing draft voters list on August 1, 2025.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
