Law does not require sharing details of persons not included in draft electoral roll: ECI tells Supreme Court

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that the law does not require the poll body to prepare or share any separate list of names of people missing from draft electoral rolls or publish the reasons for their non-inclusion “for any reason” whatsoever.

The ECI was responding to a plea by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, to provide booth-wise list of names of approximately 65 lakh electors in poll-bound Bihar whose enumeration forms were not received along with reasons for non-submission, including death, permanent shifting out of the State, duplication or untraceability, during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The NGO had also sought the publication of booth-wise lists of electors whose enumeration forms were marked “not recommended by the Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

Urging for contempt action against the NGO for misleading the Supreme Court, the ECI responded that no such lists need to be prepared or shared of “previous” electors whose enumeration forms were not received. “No such list can be sought by the petitioner as a matter of right,” the ECI said in a separate reply filed in addition to a supplementary affidavit in the top court.

The poll body referred to the Representation of People Act, 1950 and Rules 10 and 11 Registration of Electors Rules (RER), 1960 to buttress its case.

Rule 10 indicates that upon formation of a draft electoral roll, a copy is to be made available for inspection outside the Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO) office. Rule 11 only required the ERO to make “each separate part of the draft roll accessible to the public in the area to which that part relates, and supply two copies of each separate part of the roll to every recognised political party. The ECI said it has complied with these obligations.

“After the publication of the draft rolls, the political parties were supplied with an updated list of names of electors not included in the draft roll so as to ensure all attempts are made to reach out to these individuals and no eligible elector is left out. The political parties have acknowledged receipt of the said list. Here, it is also pertinent to point out that the list includes acknowledgements on behalf of CPI(M-L) as well,” the ECI said.

CPI(M-L) had objected to the deletions in the draft roll, saying living voters had been shown as dead.

The ECI further said BLOs had held polling station meetings with Booth Level Agents (BLAs) of political parties on August 7, almost a week after the publication of the preliminary electoral roll on August 1.

“The list of electors whose names could not be included in the draft electoral roll were read out and shared and appeals were made to the BLAs and others to reach out to them so that no eligible voter can be left out,” the ECI submitted.

The ECI explained that no separate inquiry is done to include names at the time of preparing the draft electoral roll. Names against every enumeration form were added “without any reservation or exception”.

“Individuals whose names do not figure in the draft electoral roll published on August 1 can submit an application under Form 6 along with the declaration contained in Annexure-D of the SIR Order to lodge a claim for inclusion in the draft roll during the claims and objections period from August 1 till September 1, 2025,” the ECI noted.

It would be implicit from the filing of Form 6 that an elector, who was not included in the preliminary electoral roll due to non-submission of enumeration form, was neither deceased nor permanently shifted nor untraceable. The ECI said providing reasons for deletion of names from the draft roll, at this point of time, served “no practical purpose”.

“Exclusion of a name from the draft electoral roll does not amount to deletion of an individual from the electoral rolls. The draft roll simply shows that the duly filled enumeration form of existing electors has been received during the enumeration phase,” the ECI reasoned.

Besides, EROs have the power to take remedial action in individual cases in which names were left out.

Rules of the RER 1960 requires the ERO to issue notice of hearing for each and every claim and objection made. Claimants and objectors whose names are missing from the draft roll are served with reasons for the deletion of their names. A comprehensive inquiry would be conducted into each of these claims and objections.

On the petitioner’s allegation that “huge percentage of electors were marked ‘not recommended’ by the BLOs”, the ECI said the submission of eligibility documents is ongoing in the claims and objection period and the recommendatory exercise that the BLOs were required to conduct has become “meaningless”.