Supreme Court Refuses To Seek ECI's Response On Newspaper Report Claiming Centralised Sending Of Mass Notices During Bihar SIR

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to call for a response from the Election Commission of India on a newspaper report alleging that lakhs of pre-filled notices for deletion of voter names were centrally issued during the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar, observing that Courts cannot be swayed by media reports unless the issue is formally brought on record through an affidavit.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions challenging the SIR process when Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms, referred to a report published in The Indian Express. As per the report,  lakhs of pre-filled notices seeking deletion of names were sent to voters from the Central Election Commission, even though under the Representation of the People Act, only the local Electoral Registration Officer is empowered to issue such notices. He described the allegation as serious and contended that it indicated centralised interference in a process that must legally remain localised.

"There were lakhs of notices for deletion of names in the Bihar SIR. It appeared this morning on The Indian Express. The report says, lakhs of pre-filled notices were sent to voters from the Central EC. These notices were sent to over 10 lakh people...This is very serious and needs a response from the Election Commission. If lakhs of notices are being sent from a centralised place, whereas the RP Act says only the ERO can send, section 23 is clear. It is very serious...it shows something is happening from the centralised ECI," Bhushan submitted. He pointed out that the report also mentioned that the ECI did not respond to the reporter's queries.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, objected to the reliance on newspaper reports and said the Commission cannot be called upon in the Court to abruptly respond to media publications. He urged that if Bhushan wished to pursue the allegation, he should place material on record through an affidavit. Dwivedi also asserted that the claim was factually incorrect and stated that all notices were issued by District Election Officers.

Responding to Bhushan's request that the Court seek an explanation from the Commission, the CJI said that as per established procedure, a response could be sought only if something was formally placed before the Court. The Chief Justice acknowledged the credibility of the newspaper and its reporters, but cautioned that courts cannot direct replies merely on the basis of reports, which themselves depend on sources and may be fully or partly correct.

"As per procedure, they can be asked for a reply only if something is brought on record before us by way of an affidavit...if we get swayed by newspaper reports and ask for a reply... We know they are credible and they are well respected. They have a reporter, and the reporter must be in touch with someone. The report says "it is learnt". "Learnt" is a qualified term...after all reporte,r is also dependent on sources; sometimes they are correct, partially correct." CJI Kant said. Supplementing the CJI, Dwivedi said that the report did not mention from where the information was "learnt" and how it was obtained.

Bhushan maintained that the information did not emerge suddenly and said he had been informed earlier by what he described as a very responsible political leader from Bihar. At this point, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in another matter, interjected to remark,"Whenever a public spirited person is approached by a top political leader, the public-spirited person should advise him to file a petition directly rather than shooting from someone else's shoulder."

"We are quite sure that the gentleman who has approached Mr.Bhushan will certainly come forward to file a petition," CJI Kant said.

Dwivedi further submitted that it was unfortunate that the petition itself had relied extensively on newspaper reports without verification, leading to prolonged arguments based on unverified material.

Declining to issue any direction to the Election Commission on the basis of the report, the Court reiterated that allegations of this nature must be supported by affidavits or other material placed on record, failing which the Court would not call for explanations based solely on media publications.

The Indian Express reported that during the closing phase of the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar, lakhs of pre-filled notices seeking voter verification appeared on the logins of local Electoral Registration Officers, even though the law under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 empowers only the constituency-level ERO to initiate such scrutiny. While the notices bore the names of EROs, they were not generated by them but through the Election Commission's centralised portal, the report claimed. The report also pointed out that these notices did not translate to mass deletions, and most deletions were attributed to routine reasons like death, migration or duplication. However, the report raised concerns about the manner in which the notices were centrally generated, pre-populated with reasons and routed to voters.