The bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, that the reason for deletion would come in subsequent time as it is now only a draft list.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond to allegations that it failed to disclose details of 65 lakh voters removed from Bihar's electoral rolls during a Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N.K. Singh issued notice on an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which claimed the ECI did not make public the names or reasons behind the large-scale deletions in the draft roll published on August 1.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, argued before the court that while the draft roll mentioned the removal of 65 lakh voters—citing reasons such as death or migration—the ECI had not provided the actual list of deleted names. "They should disclose who these 65 lakh voters are—specifying who are dead and who have migrated," Bhushan submitted. He also raised concerns over whether Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had properly verified the deletions, emphasizing that the BLOs' recommendations were crucial in the process.

The ECI's counsel countered that the draft rolls had been shared with political party representatives as per procedure, stating, "We can show that we have shared the list with the political party representatives." However, Justice Kant underscored the Commission's obligation under its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and called for transparency, directing the ECI to provide a list of political parties that received the data so ADR could obtain the information from authorized representatives. "We will ensure every affected voter gets the requisite information," Justice Kant observed.

Bhushan disputed the ECI's claim, asserting that even if some parties had received the data, the reasons for the deletions were not disclosed. The Supreme Court has now asked the ECI to file a detailed reply by Saturday, after which the matter will be heard further. The case highlights growing scrutiny over electoral roll revisions and the transparency of voter list maintenance ahead of upcoming elections.