Bihar SIR: Singhvi and ADR Raise Questions on Election Commission’s Process, ECI to Respond Tomorrow

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocate Gopal Shankar Narayan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), raised serious concerns about the Election Commission’s process. Both labeled the Election Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025, as "arbitrary" and one that "deprives millions of voters of their voting rights."

Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that the Election Commission admitted to removing 65 lakh voters’ names from the voter list in Bihar without any notice, documentation, or proper procedure. He noted that the Commission claimed several lakhs of these voters were deceased, many lakhs had migrated, and some lakhs were duplicates. However, the shocking revelation is that some individuals declared deceased are alive and even appeared in court. Two such individuals were presented in court the previous day.

Singhvi argued that no one is challenging the Election Commission’s authority to remove names, but the process violates principles of natural justice. The procedure for removing names is complex, and the Commission has not followed it. He also pointed out that Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra were exempted from this process, while Bihar and other states were subjected to it. "I’m not saying they should give less time to Bengal. I’m only saying that Bihar should be given sufficient time for SIR," he said.

Representing ADR, Gopal Shankar Narayan raised concerns about the SIR process in both Bihar and West Bengal. He stated, "The Election Commission is initiating the process in West Bengal without any consultation. The right to be included in the voter list is a constitutional right, safeguarded under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951."

Narayan argued that the Commission imposed a burden on 8 crore people by demanding a "fabricated document" to prove citizenship and their parents’ citizenship. "Even if I’m in jail, I cannot be removed from the voter list. Parliament has safeguarded this right," he said.

He further stated, "Once a voter list is finalized, it is permanent. The Commission cannot arbitrarily alter it. If this is allowed, where will it end? The Election Commission has excluded a large number of people from voting. Voting is my fundamental right.

India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy. Can a custodian toy with us like this? The Election Commission cannot do this. Who gave it the authority to do so?"

Advocate Prashant Bhushan questioned why the Election Commission removed the searchable version of the draft voter roll from its website. He noted that this was done the day after Rahul Gandhi’s press conference, where he accused the Commission of manipulating the voter list. Bhushan demanded that the Election Commission publish the list of the 65 lakh voters removed from the list and provide reasons for the omission.

Bhushan said, "They claim they have precise reasons for removing names, so why aren’t those reasons on the website? This indicates mala fide intent."

He sought interim directions for the Election Commission to publish the names of those excluded from the draft, make the draft list searchable on the website, provide names of individuals recommended or not recommended by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and specify reasons for removals.

The bench also briefly heard arguments from senior advocate Shadan Farasat, Kalyan Banerjee, and P.C. Sen. The court will hear the Election Commission’s arguments tomorrow. The previous day, Tuesday, the bench had heard arguments from senior advocate Kapil Sibal (representing RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha), senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, advocate Prashant Bhushan, advocate Vrinda Grover, and political activist Yogendra Yadav on behalf of the petitioners.