Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to seek a response from the Election Commission to allegations carried in a media report that lakhs of pre-filled notices for deletion of voters’ names were centrally generated during the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar, rather than being issued by local electoral authorities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made clear that the court could not be persuaded to act solely on the basis of a media report. The judges observed that entertaining such claims without a formal pleading supported by sworn material would amount to setting an unsound judicial precedent, particularly in matters touching the electoral process.
The issue arose during a hearing involving the Association for Democratic Reforms, a non-governmental organisation that has frequently approached constitutional courts on electoral transparency and voter rights. The organisation drew the Bench’s attention to a published report alleging that notices proposing deletion of voters’ names were issued in a uniform, pre-filled format on a large scale during the revision exercise in Bihar, raising concerns about centralised action and the potential disenfranchisement of electors.
The court, however, emphasised that judicial scrutiny must be triggered by material placed on record in accordance with established procedure. The Chief Justice said the Bench could not be “swayed by a newspaper report” unless the underlying facts were formally brought before it through an affidavit. Without such a foundation, the court held, it would be inappropriate to call upon the Election Commission to explain or defend its actions.
The judges asked the organisation to file an affidavit setting out the specific facts it wished the court to consider, including details of the alleged notices, the manner of their issuance, and how they departed from prescribed procedures under election law. Only after such material was placed on record, the Bench indicated, would the court consider whether it was necessary to seek a response from the poll authority.
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a periodic exercise aimed at updating voter lists by adding eligible citizens and removing names of those who have died, relocated, or otherwise become ineligible. The process is governed by detailed statutory rules that assign significant responsibility to local electoral officers, including verification at the ground level and the issuance of notices to individuals whose inclusion on the rolls is in question.
Concerns about voter list revisions have surfaced in several states over the years, with civil society groups warning that procedural lapses or excessive reliance on administrative shortcuts could undermine the right to vote. In Bihar, the allegations suggested that centrally prepared notices, if proven, might indicate a departure from decentralised verification, potentially affecting the fairness and transparency of the exercise.
The Election Commission has consistently maintained in past cases that revisions are carried out strictly in accordance with law, with multiple safeguards to prevent arbitrary deletions. These include public display of draft rolls, opportunities for objections and claims, and appeals to higher authorities. Any deletion, the Commission has said on earlier occasions, must follow due notice and an opportunity of hearing for the concerned voter.
By declining to intervene at this stage, the Supreme Court signalled its insistence on procedural discipline in public interest litigation, especially when allegations stem from secondary sources rather than primary evidence. The Bench’s remarks underscored a broader judicial approach that courts should not be converted into forums for testing the veracity of media reports without the rigour of pleadings and proof.
Legal observers note that the order leaves the door open for further scrutiny if the organisation places substantive material before the court. An affidavit supported by documents or testimonies could prompt judicial examination of whether the revision exercise in Bihar adhered to constitutional and statutory guarantees, including equality before law and the protection of voting rights.
