On 28 July, while responding to apprehensions that 65 lakh voters were being excluded from the draft voter rolls to be published on 1 August by the Election Commission of India (ECI) following the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, the Supreme Court had orally said the court would step in if there was any mass exclusion.

Justice Surya Kant had observed, "We are here, we will hear you." Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “If there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in. Bring 15 people saying they are alive." The petitioners are believed to have submitted affidavits from many more than 15 people who have complained that they have been left out of the draft electoral rolls following the SIR exercise carried out between 25 June and 25 July. The same SC bench is expected to hear the ECI and the petitioners again today, i.e. 12 August.

The petitioners have claimed that contrary to the ECI's claim, the booth-level officers (BLO) did not visit the electors thrice during the one-month period and physically verify their status. They have also furnished proof that contrary to the ECI’s claim and assurance, no acknowledgment has been provided to a large number of electors, who have no way of proving that they had submitted forms and documents as required by the ECI.

Other glaring discrepancies have also come to light. While the SIR was intended to ‘purify’ and clean up electoral rolls, numerous problems have been highlighted by ground reports. Sundry media outlets have reported that the draft rolls include the name of a lady who is said to be 124 years old, while the world’s oldest living woman is said to be 'only' 115, according to the Guinness Book of Records.

Similarly, there are reports of 269 voters registered under the same address and people belonging to different faiths and castes living in the same house under the same roof.

In a counter affidavit filed by the ECI on 9 August, the Commission informed the Supreme Court that it was not bound by any law to publish separate lists of those voters found to be dead or having duplicate EPIC (Electors Photo Identity Card) numbers or who are claimed to have permanently shifted out of the state. It has also contended that it has provided the names of electors left out of draft rolls at the booth-level to political parties, a claim which the parties have vehemently denied.

The ECI also apparently believes it is under no obligation to provide easily searchable or machine-readable draft rolls on its website. While it earlier uploaded the draft rolls in a machine-readable format amenable to being searched digitally and organised using computer programmes or AI, it has inexplicably replaced the PDF files with scanned images instead, making it much harder for citizens, activists , journalists, researchers and political parties to analyse the data.

Several legal experts have contested the ECI’s claim and pointed out that there is no law or rule either that prohibits the Commission from publishing such lists. Unless the ECI has something to hide, it has no reason to deny disclosure of such details.