Case details:
Citation : Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2025 (Pending, Supreme Court of India)
Bench : Two judge bench
Case Number: WP(Civil) No. 640/2025
Petitioners: Association for Democratic Reforms, Yogendra Singh Yadav, Manoj Jha, Mahua
Moitra, People’s Union for Civil Liberties
Respondent: Election Commission of India
Legal Counsel: Prashant Bhushan (ADR), Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shadan Farasat
Facts of the case:
On June 24, 2025, ECI began the SIR which led to deletion of nearly 65 lakh (6.5 million) voters
in Bihar—about 8% of the electorate.
According to ECI, the breakdown for voter deletion was:
22 lakh deceased
7 lakh registered in multiple places
35 lakh migrated/untraceable
ADR alleges ECI did not publish the names or share complete lists (including reasons) with all
political parties, limiting public verification and scrutiny
There was also concern over Booth Level Officers (BLOs) marking forms as “recommended” or
“not recommended” without transparency or disclosure.
Issue of the case:
Whether the SIR notification violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (free
speech), and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution.
Alleged arbitrariness and lack of justification in conducting the SIR
Breach of principles of due process and natural justice, especially relating to voter deletion
Practicality and reasonableness of the SIR’s timeline
Supreme Court Proceedings:
Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant ordered ECI to file a comprehensive response
by August 9, 2025, and provide copies to ADR’s counsel.
ECI was directed to clarify:
Whether the deletion lists were shared with every political party at block level
Who received copies and what was shared.
The matter was scheduled for further hearing on August 12, 2025.
Court cautioned ECI to prioritize “mass inclusion, not mass exclusion,” and questioned refusal to
recognize Aadhaar or EPIC as valid ID documents for verification during SIR.
Petitioners’ Arguments:
ADR and co-petitioners argue that the lack of transparency and failure to disclose voter
names/reasons for deletion undermines electoral fairness and due process.
Selective information sharing and non-disclosure blocks ground-level verification, potentially
resulting in unjustified disenfranchisement.
More than 75% of electors did not submit any of the eleven documents for verification, with BLO
scrutiny undocumented and unpublicized.
Key Developments & Current Status:
The Supreme Court is adjudicating whether the SIR process is arbitrary and unconstitutional,
and whether ECI must make full details publicly available.
As of August 2025, case remains pending; ECI has been asked to provide detailed disclosure of
names and reasons for voter deletions at constituency and booth levels.
Effect/Impact:
The case has triggered political and civil society concerns over voter disenfranchisement,
transparency, and the integrity of the electoral process in India. It may have major implications
for future electoral revisions and the standards of due process in voter roll management.
Present Status :
Pending before Supreme Court as of August 2025