The patterns analysed by HT in the August 1 draft roll were largely consistent with those in the September 30 document.

Official records from the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) revealed that out of 366,742 names deleted from the draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), 9,968 were removed without citing death, relocation, or duplication as the reason. Among the rest, 62,441 were marked as deceased, 212,999 as having shifted residence, and 81,334 as repeated entries, people familiar with the matter said.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on September 30 published the final electoral list for Bihar comprising 74.2 million voters, roughly 4.7 million names lighter than at the beginning of the controversial exercise that ended on the day. The draft roll published on August 1 after the first phase of the SIR was completed, comprised 72.4 million people, dropping 6.56 million names from the rolls published on June 24. In the two-month-long verification of documents and submission of objections process, another 366,000 names were excised while 2.15 million names were added, the ECI statement had then said.

As per the records, the unexplained deletions are particularly concentrated in districts such as Supaul (4,300), Kishanganj (3,848), West Champaran (251) and Sitamarhi (200).

To be sure, the constituency-level totals appear higher than the state figure because initial reports include all deletions before consolidation. According to ECI, it removes duplicate counts to ensure each voter is counted once in the final tally. Many of these districts lie along Bihar’s northern and eastern borders adjoining Nepal and West Bengal. The border belt has large populations of seasonal migrants and cross-border families, where citizenship documentation is often patchy and voter verification drives have historically faced administrative challenges.

For example, the name of a repeated entry can be deleted from two districts; and will show as two different deletions in both the districts. However, it will show as a single deletion in the state total.

The patterns analysed by HT in the August 1 draft roll were largely consistent with those in the September 30 document. The eastern Bihar district of Gopalganj – marked by seasonal riverine floods, distress migration and marriage links across the state border with Uttar Pradesh – saw the maximum share of deletions in both the August 1 and September 30 rolls. Similarly, more female names were deleted from the rolls than male names.

The number of deletions are among the largest single removal of voters from any state’s electoral rolls in recent memory, a move the poll panel has defended as being necessary in the Supreme Court to maintain the sanctity of elections. The completion of the process is also the final stage before the high-stakes assembly elections are announced likely in the next two weeks.

The exercise began on July 1. The first phase of SIR – which saw roughly 100,000 booth-level officers fan out across 38 districts and distribute partially pre-filled forms to electors – ended on July 26. The draft roll was published on August 1 with the deletions largely attributed to absent, shifted or dead voters.

Soon after it was announced, SIR generated a controversy. Opposition MPs have demonstrated against the exercise in Parliament, alleging it is an affront to electoral democracy. But ECI dismissed these allegations. The Supreme Court refused to stay the exercise but asked the commission to consider accepting Aadhaar cards and voter IDs as supporting documents. On October 7, the Supreme Court asked ECI to furnish information about the nearly 366,000 additional voters deleted from the final electoral rolls, while clarifying that it will not conduct any “roving inquiry” into the SIR process unless credible examples are shown to prove that genuine voters were wrongfully excluded.

Interestingly, the data also shows that there were no suo motu deletions by state officers. All deletions were made on the basis of Form 7, which is used in objecting to someone’s inclusion in the electoral roll or for seeking deletion of one’s own or another’s name. An elector may invoke Form 7 on grounds such as death, permanent shifting, duplication, under-age, or non-citizenship. In theory, once a Form 7 is filed, the electoral registration officer must issue a hearing, consider objections, record reasons for acceptance or rejection, and inform the interested party.

Officials aware of the matter told HT that many of the deleted entries pertain to “illegal migrants” or to people who failed to respond with documentary proof following notices and hearing orders. However, officials refused to give the breakup of the data on how many are illegal immigrants and how many did not have proper documentation.

Opposition parties, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and various civil society organizations, have pressed strongly against the SIR process. They argue that mass deletions—especially of groups such as women, minorities or economically marginalized migrants—amount to denial of franchise to citizens who were never duly informed. In court pleadings, they have pointed out that the published lists show voters as “deleted” without detailed reasons or individual communication, rendering appeals meaningless. They have also submitted that the exercise departs from earlier norms: for instance, in the 2003 intensive revision, citizenship verification was not broadly mandated across all entries, whereas in 2025 the burden of proof seems to have shifted heavily onto the voter.

In hearings before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi), petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Yogendra Yadav and others have demanded that the Election Commission of India (ECI) disclose the full list of deleted names along with reasons for each deletion, and allow excluded electors to file appeals. The Court has flagged that, while natural deletions like death or migration may be acceptable, “if you are deleting someone, please follow Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960,” and directed that voters be given the opportunity to be heard. The Court has also ordered that the state legal services authority provide free legal aid to the excluded 3.66 lakh individuals.

ECI and CEO officials maintain that almost all deletions (about 99 percent) pertain to legitimate grounds of death, migration or duplication, and that non-citizens accounted for a negligible proportion of removals. During court proceedings, ECI counsel has asserted no complaints or appeals have been filed by excluded electors, and that all political parties had expressed satisfaction with the roll revision.

However, petitioners say the absence of individual notices and the opacity in reasoned deletions may amount to disenfranchisement at scale, particularly in border districts and migrant-rich areas.