What SC’s Order to Election Commission to Publish 6.5 Million Voter Deletions Means

Court Directs District-Wise Lists With Reasons and Wide Public Dissemination

August 16, 2025

The Supreme Court’s order directing the Election Commission of India (EC) to publish detailed lists of 6.5 million (65 lakh) deleted voters in Bihar shows that the EC resisted transparency until compelled by the Court. A body constitutionally mandated to conduct free and fair elections should not need judicial intervention to carry out tasks that fall squarely within its mandate, including the protection of the integrity of the franchise.

The Court instructed the EC to release district-wise lists of deletions, including specific reasons such as death, migration, or duplication, and to make these lists available both physically in administrative offices and online. It also required that the news of deletions be disseminated widely in local languages, English newspapers and electronic media.

These are elementary steps for public accountability, yet they came only after resistance from the EC, which sought to proceed with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in a manner that heightened public suspicion rather than building confidence.

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the EC with plenary powers of superintendence, direction and control of elections. It can requisition staff from any government department and compel compliance with its directives. Its own rules mandate the publication of revised rolls and provide clear procedures for additions, deletions and corrections. In the case of Bihar, the Court had to remind the Commission that while its powers are wide, its conduct must be “reasonable” and provide “comfort to citizens,” as reported by The Indian Express.

The Commission’s reluctance becomes more concerning against the backdrop of independent findings about errors in voter lists.

Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and The Reporters’ Collective recently pointed to the presence of duplicate voters in large numbers across constituencies. These are discrepancies that the EC is mandated to detect and eliminate through its verification machinery. Instead of treating such exposures as opportunities to demonstrate its vigilance, the Commission has often responded defensively, denying the scale of the problem or dismissing concerns as politically motivated.

Thankfully, the Court’s order in Bihar has made clear that transparency is non-negotiable and the public has a right to know the basis on which millions of names are being struck off.

The burden placed on the most vulnerable voters in Bihar further exposes the weakness of the EC’s methods. Migrant workers, Dalits, small farmers and daily wage earners are being asked to produce documents that are often hard to access, particularly for those who do not appear in the 2003 electoral roll. It is the Commission’s role to ensure that no citizen is disenfranchised because of arbitrary or overly rigid procedures.

Since the EC plans to carry out SIR across the country, its conduct in Bihar becomes a template for how voter lists will be revised nationwide. The exercise must safeguard, rather than weaken, citizens’ trust in the electoral process.

The EC cannot invoke manpower shortages or administrative complexity as excuses. Its structure allows it to draw on the machinery of state governments, and technology provides further tools to make rolls accurate and transparent. That is precisely why opposition parties have demanded digital copies of the rolls, so they can verify them independently. If opposition parties and journalists can conduct such checks quickly, why has the EC not done so itself?

The Supreme Court has stated that it will not interfere with the EC’s mandate, but it has also set boundaries. It has stressed that transparency is a core duty of the Commission, not a discretionary gesture, something the EC ought to have recognised on its own.

The presence of duplicate voters exposed by external actors, along with deletions carried out without adequate clarity, suggests that scrutiny is being applied from outside rather than within. If the EC continues to rely on judicial prodding before fulfilling its responsibilities, it risks diminishing both public trust and its own constitutional standing.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.