New Delhi, October 16: The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for November 4 on a series of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. The petitioners have urged the court to instruct the ECI to separately publish lists of voters who were added or deleted during the revision process. In response, the Supreme Court remarked that the Election Commission is well aware of its duty to disclose voter data upon the completion of the recently concluded SIR.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA) to issue instructions to its district-level bodies to help voters who were excluded from the final electoral rolls following the SIR exercise. The BSLSA is tasked with ensuring that free legal aid is provided to those excluded from the voter list, enabling them to file appeals with the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized the need for District Legal Services Authorities to facilitate the availability of paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsels to assist these voters.

This order came after the court noted discrepancies in affidavits submitted by individuals claiming to have been wrongly excluded from the final voter list. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, disputed the claims made in an affidavit by one individual, presented by the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The affidavit alleged that a person whose name appeared in the draft list had been removed from the final list. However, Dwivedi contended that the individual was never listed in the draft, as he had failed to submit an enumeration form. Dwivedi further accused the petitioner of submitting a false affidavit, an act which, he argued, amounted to perjury. He also pointed out that there is still a five-day window for those excluded from the final list to file appeals.

During the hearing, the bench expressed its displeasure over the handling of the affidavits and advised advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, that greater responsibility was expected when submitting documents to the court.

The apex court also heard arguments from political activist Yogendra Yadav, who has been involved in the case.