SC seeks uniform guidelines for electoral roll revision, flags absence of opposition lawyers

The court, however, expressed concern over the absence of senior lawyers from key opposition parties, including the Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), during the crucial hearing.

Justice Surya Kant, heading the bench, noted that despite the significance of the case for electoral transparency, “major political parties seem disinterested.”

The observation came as the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has challenged the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR process in Bihar, informed the court that senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who were expected to represent opposition parties, were missing from the day’s proceedings.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for ADR, urged the bench to move forward with hearing arguments on the constitutional validity of the SIR.

“When we started, it was a cricket team of lawyers against SIR. Now, the political parties have vanished as elections approach,” he said.

He clarified that the present lawyers, including advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, were representing citizens and civil groups, not political parties.

Justice Kant responded sharply, saying, “We have seen how political parties have responded to the court’s appeal to assist deleted voters."

ECI defends process, denies ‘Communal Bias’

The bench took note of concerns over alleged voter deletions and lack of transparency. Justice Kant said the Election Commission “knows its responsibility” and must ensure transparency while publishing the final rolls after additions and deletions.

The ECI, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, told the court it had filed a fresh affidavit rejecting ADR’s claim of “disproportionate exclusion of Muslims” from Bihar’s electoral rolls.

The poll body said the allegation was based on “name-recognition software” whose accuracy was “doubtful.”

Calling the claim a “communal approach” that should be “deprecated,” the ECI stressed that its database does not record any voter’s religion.

Prashant Bhushan’s affidavit controversy

Earlier, Prashant Bhushan clarified that a list of 135 allegedly deleted voters submitted earlier had been verified.

“All details of voters are correct,” he told the bench.

Justice Kant replied that the court would only consider material that impacts the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court also reiterated that the SIR process appeared prima facie lawful, but emphasized the need for uniform procedural safeguards across states.

The bench directed both the ECI and the petitioners to file additional affidavits before the next hearing, expected in November.

It also allowed the petitioners to approach the court for urgent relief if needed before November 4.

The Election Commission informed the court that the final electoral rolls will be published by October 17.