The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday informed the Supreme Court that while claims, objections, and corrections in the draft electoral roll prepared during Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise may technically be filed beyond the September 1 deadline, they will only be taken up after the final roll is published.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, taking note of the EC’s submission, recorded that such claims could be lodged until the last date for filing nomination forms in each assembly constituency.
The top court, terming the controversy surrounding the Bihar SIR a “largely trust issue,” directed the State Legal Services Authority to deploy paralegal volunteers. These volunteers will assist individual voters and political parties in filing claims and objections regarding the draft electoral roll, which was made public on August 1.
The bench also instructed the volunteers to submit confidential reports to district judges by September 8 for consideration.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, argued against extending the September 1 deadline, warning that such a move could disrupt the entire exercise of finalising the electoral roll.
Dwivedi pointed out that 99.5% of Bihar’s 2.74 crore electors included in the draft roll had already submitted eligibility documents. He further countered allegations made by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), clarifying that while the party claimed to have filed 36 objections, only 10 were received, and all had been duly accepted.
The EC also stated it would issue notices within a week to electors whose documentation remained incomplete, stressing that the SIR was a “continuing exercise.” Interestingly, most claims and objections filed by political parties, the poll panel noted, sought exclusions rather than inclusions.
The RJD and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) had petitioned the apex court seeking an extension of the September 1 deadline, arguing that more time was needed to ensure proper inclusion and exclusion of names in the voter list ahead of the polls.
For now, however, the Supreme Court has opted to balance voter assistance with procedural discipline, leaving the EC’s timeline intact but directing oversight through paralegal volunteers.
