Psephologist and politician Yogendra Singh Yadav has filed a rejoinder in the Supreme Court stating that approximately 40 lakh electors face the prospect of deletion from the electoral rolls in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”) in Bihar.

As per Yadav’s rejoinder, a week before the last of filling the enumeration form for the updation of the electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (“ECI”) had only covered that 94.68% of the 7.9 crore Bihar electorate, which means 5.2% electors are yet to submit their forms.

Yadav calls the SIR exercise exclusionary, countering the ECI’s response in the counter affidavit that the exercise is ‘all-inclusive’.

“The SIR, it is respectfully submitted, is not only exclusionary by design, i.e., its framework is exclusionary, but also in practice. Admittedly, as on 18.07.2025, i.e., a week before the last of filling the enumeration form, the ECI had covered 94.68% of the 7.9 crore strong Bihar electorate, which means that 5.2% (approx. 39.4 lakh) electors remained to submit their enumeration forms. This is an enormous and unprecedented number in any electoral revision exercise.”

He adds that approximately 40 lakh individuals, whose names appeared on the electoral rolls revised in January and April 2025, and who have voted in previous elections, will now face the prospect of deletion.

“The aforesaid 40 lakh individuals, whose names appeared on the electoral rolls revised in January and April 2025, and who have voted in previous elections on the basis of which both central and state governments have been formed, will now face the prospect of deletion from the voter list solely for not submitting/not being given an enumeration form. This marks a radical departure from established law and precedent by effectively reversing the presumption of citizenship and shifting the burden of proof onto the elector.”

Consequently, Yadav claims in his rejoinder, these people will be categorised into buckets such as foreign illegal immigrants.

“What is worse is, by their own admission, electors are not required to submit documentary proof of birth, residence or lineage at this stage. Therefore, 39.4 lakh persons have been categorised into buckets such as foreign illegal immigrants allegedly from Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar, permanently shifted, enrolled in more than one place, etc. without any determining principle. Such sweeping generalisations about such a vast number of individuals risks mass disenfranchisement, especially in a rushed and flawed enumeration process, which is severely constrained in terms of infrastructure and personnel.”

Yadav’s rejoinder also counters various submissions made by the ECI, including that the SIR exercise adheres to the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960.

It has been stated that the ECI acknowledges a presumption of citizenship once a person’s name is on the electoral rolls as held by the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995). He urges that those 40 lakh individuals, who are yet to submit their enumeration form, their citizenship must be presumed, and they must not be deleted from the rolls.

He is one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court who have challenged the SIR process.

Individuals once deleted from draft roll will be registered as new voters

Further, the rejoinder points out that those persons whose names are missing in the electoral rolls may submit an enumeration form along with one of the eleven documents to support their claims even during the objection and claims phase. However, what ECI appears to obfuscate is that once a person’s name is excluded from the draft roll, they are treated as a fresh voter.

“The ECI appears to suggest that if an individual fails to submit the enumeration form during the initial period, they may still do so during the subsequent claims and objections phase. What they fail to clarify, however, is that such individuals must also submit a self-declaration along with Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules — a form that is used exclusively for new voter registrations. The inescapable consequence, which the ECI is attempting to obfuscate, is that once a person’s name is excluded from the draft roll, they are treated as a fresh/new voter, irrespective of their prior inclusion on the voter list or history of voting. This effectively erases their status as registered electors and subjects them to the full burden of re-establishing their eligibility through a fresh and onerous verification process.”

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the matter on July 28.

Rejoinder has been drawn by Advocate Natasha Maheshwari and Advocate Harshit Anand, and filed through Advocate Yash S Vijay.

Case Details: Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and connected matters| W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 and connected matters