Bihar Voter List Controversy: Following Bihar's special intensive voter list revision process, some NGOs and petitioners accused the Election Commission (EC) of removing many names from the voter list. The Election Commission responded in the Supreme Magistrate that all political parties were satisfied with the process and no one had filed any appeals versus the removals.
The magistrate said, "Some people are living in the state illegally. They don't want to file appeals versus the removals. Suppose a hundred people file affidavits and tell the magistrate that they want to appeal." – Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Data and details:
- The final Bihar voter list contained a total of 74 million names.
- The names of 6.5 million voters were removed from the typhoon list.
- An spare 3.7 lakh names were later removed, and 2.15 million new voters were added.
- The Supreme Magistrate sought details from the EC on the 3.7 lakh removed names.
EC lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi said that the NGO, represented by Prashant Bhushan, should file affidavits of the individuals whose names were removed without notice. The seat of Justices Surya Kant and Bagchi asked, "For whom was this exercise (by the NGO) undertaken?"
The final list is stuff calculated
The magistrate moreover said that the spare names widow should be unmistakably identified, whether they are those of the deleted names or new names. Justice Bagchi said, "We see that 6.5 million names were removed from the typhoon list. We said that deceased or transferred persons are fine, but if someone's name is stuff removed, please follow Rule 21 and the SOP. Now, the final list is stuff calculated, and there is ravages in the normal democratic process—whether the spare names widow are those of the deleted names or new names."
Senior lawyer Maninder Singh, representing the NGO, reminded the magistrate that Yugendra Yadav presented two voters whose names were removed without ultimatum they were dead. He stated that the EC had repeatedly sought details from the person concerned but had not yet received any information.
The EC clarified that of the 6.5 million deleted names, 2.2 million were deceased, 3.6 million had permanently migrated, and 700,000 were registered at multiple locations. Despite this, no one filed an appeal.
Prashant Bhushan objected to the SIR process, but the magistrate stated, "We cannot self-mastery a roving inquiry into the statutory process of preparing the electoral roll by the Election Commission. Our objective is only to ensure that the Election Commission conducts this process in a smooth and transparent manner."
