The Crossbill Team
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it is not legally bound to publish the names of voters excluded from draft electoral rolls or to provide reasons for their non-inclusion.
The clarification came in an affidavit filed after the apex court sought the Commission’s response by August 9 to a plea from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
ADR had urged the Commission to release details of 65 lakh voters excluded after the first phase of the exercise, arguing that without reasons for deletion, the draft rolls “serve no purpose” and cannot be used for verification.
In its reply, the ECI cited Rules 10 and 11 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which mandate that draft rolls be made available for inspection at the office of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and in public areas, with copies supplied to recognised political parties. It stressed that neither the law nor existing guidelines require the preparation or publication of a separate list of excluded voters.
The Commission released the first draft of revised electoral rolls on August 1, showing the exclusion of around 65 lakh voters — including 22 lakh declared deceased, 36 lakh marked as permanently shifted or not found, and seven lakh identified as duplicates. It said voters whose names are missing can submit Form 6 with a declaration during the claims and objections period from August 1 to September 1, adding that filing such a claim inherently asserts that the applicant is neither deceased, untraceable, nor permanently relocated.
Rejecting ADR’s contention that non-inclusion amounts to deletion, the ECI argued that names missing from the draft do not necessarily indicate removal from the rolls, noting that inadvertent errors are possible in a large-scale exercise. It cited Rule 21 of the RER 1960, which empowers EROs to take remedial action.
The Commission said issuing reasons for exclusion is not contemplated under the statutory framework and that before publishing the draft roll, it had directed that lists of excluded names be shared with political parties to help reach affected voters — a move announced via a press note on July 20.
The affidavit accused ADR of attempting to “mislead” the court with “false and erroneous assertions” and of trying to “malign” the poll body through media narratives, urging the court to impose heavy costs.
The ECI also rejected claims of deviation from past practice, stating that the petitioner had cited a final roll, and that the final electoral roll after the SIR in Bihar will similarly include all relevant details. It further clarified that recommendations by Booth Level Officers for exclusion were made solely for administrative efficiency and did not affect a voter’s eligibility.
The clarification came in an affidavit filed after the apex court sought the Commission’s response by August 9 to a plea from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
ADR had urged the Commission to release details of 65 lakh voters excluded after the first phase of the exercise, arguing that without reasons for deletion, the draft rolls “serve no purpose” and cannot be used for verification.
In its reply, the ECI cited Rules 10 and 11 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which mandate that draft rolls be made available for inspection at the office of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and in public areas, with copies supplied to recognised political parties. It stressed that neither the law nor existing guidelines require the preparation or publication of a separate list of excluded voters.
The Commission released the first draft of revised electoral rolls on August 1, showing the exclusion of around 65 lakh voters — including 22 lakh declared deceased, 36 lakh marked as permanently shifted or not found, and seven lakh identified as duplicates. It said voters whose names are missing can submit Form 6 with a declaration during the claims and objections period from August 1 to September 1, adding that filing such a claim inherently asserts that the applicant is neither deceased, untraceable, nor permanently relocated.
Rejecting ADR’s contention that non-inclusion amounts to deletion, the ECI argued that names missing from the draft do not necessarily indicate removal from the rolls, noting that inadvertent errors are possible in a large-scale exercise. It cited Rule 21 of the RER 1960, which empowers EROs to take remedial action.
The Commission said issuing reasons for exclusion is not contemplated under the statutory framework and that before publishing the draft roll, it had directed that lists of excluded names be shared with political parties to help reach affected voters — a move announced via a press note on July 20.
The affidavit accused ADR of attempting to “mislead” the court with “false and erroneous assertions” and of trying to “malign” the poll body through media narratives, urging the court to impose heavy costs.
The ECI also rejected claims of deviation from past practice, stating that the petitioner had cited a final roll, and that the final electoral roll after the SIR in Bihar will similarly include all relevant details. It further clarified that recommendations by Booth Level Officers for exclusion were made solely for administrative efficiency and did not affect a voter’s eligibility.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment