At the core of a legal dispute over a special intensive revision (Sir), the basic principle of natural justice – hears a person before deciding to cause damage.
The “person” is a “person” by 65 voters “deleted” from the proposal of an electoral role published by the Indian Electoral Commission (ECI) 1 August. “Interest” or more concisely determined, constitutional law is authorized to remain in the election war of election elections.
The Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices Surya Kant and Joylya Bagchi repeatedly asked at the ongoing hearing whether it was a challenge for the legality of its procedure or the power of ECI to do the exercise.
The petitioners replied that the “illegality” of the procedure – for the “presumedly excluded” existing voters until they provide evidence of their citizenship; EN BLOC DELECE LAKHY voters without a prior investigation by an official for registration of the elections (ERO); The absence of a reasonable opportunity to listen to voters after they provided them with reasons for suspicion that they were not Indian citizens – represented the “occasional” performance of considerable powers to control an electoral role under Article 324 of the Constitution.
There are strict standards and procedures stipulated by legal laws that ECE in the registration of names in election roles. These laws balance the power of the supervisor over the elections pursuant to Article 324 with ordinary citizens or the right of “Little Man” voting enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 62 of the People’s Representation (RP) Act.
Section 16 of the RP Act sets three reasons for disqualification of a person for registration in an election role. They are citizens, unhealthy minds and corruption/offenses related to the elections. Section 22 seizes the ERO to remove the voter from the roles after arranging the question.
Also read | What happens to the “missing names” on the Bihar Sir list?
The voter must have the opportunity to be heard, except for the death case. Similarly, the rule of 21a registration of the 1960 voter voters also emphasizes ECI to remove existing names from election roles. The removal procedure must again correspond to the principles of natural justice.
No name will be deleted without prior notice, says ECI on Bihar Sir
The Indian Election Commission told the Supreme Court that no name of the voter in Bihar would be deleted during a special intensive revision. Certainly came after fear of removing approximately 65 Lakh names from the concept. The vote body stated that the principles of natural justice would follow, offer appeal and take steps to ensure the exclusion of an eligible voter. | Video credit: Hindi
The Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein Versus Ero, the 1995 case law, which is the subject of the current hearing, divided voters into two categories-first voters and existing voters. This means that those whose names are to be entered for the first time, and those who already have names in the voters’ list.
The Supreme Court believed that the ECI was not incorrect to demand evidence of Indian citizenship from the first voters.
In the case of existing voters, however, the court noted that “it is necessary to assume that before entering his name, the officer must go through the procedural requirements according to the status”.
Bihar Sir Row: ECI lacks the power to determine citizenship
On Tuesday (August 12, 2025), the Supreme Court listened to a dose of petitions that question the Election Commission of India (ECI) at the command for a special intensive revision (Sir) of electoral roles in a Bihar survey. | Video credit: Hindi
The role in Bihar draft deleted voters who have participated in several elections over the last 22 years. In some cases, the petitioners argued that voters were deleted from roles for just a reason that local stand officers did not recommend continuing their names. Now it is buried to prove their citizenship ECI, and in November there were only two months left for elections to the assembly.
In Lal Babu Hussein Apex Court said that “the opportunity” that was given to the existing voter to be heard before the deletion of her name must be “meaningful and effective”.
“IT Goes without Saying That The Person Concerned Whose Name is Borne on the Roll and Is Intended to Be Reut Must Be Informed Wy and Suspicion Has Arisen in Regard to His Status as A Citizen of India so that Basis for the Doubt is Disclosed, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR PERSON TO REMOVE The Doubt and Explain Any Circumstance or Circumstance Responsible for the Doubt, ”The Supreme Court Has Held.
Published – August 14, 2025 11:25
