A Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta asked the Commission to be ready with documents, data, and supporting material outlining the scope, methodology, and outcome of the revision process. The court indicated that the nature of the allegation required a fact-based response from the poll authority, emphasising that the integrity of the voter roll was central to maintaining public trust. The Bench also sought clarity on the procedures followed for identifying multiple entries and the timeline of deletions carried out across districts.
ADR’s petition contended that the verification exercise did not catch widespread duplication that it claims persists across several constituencies. According to its submissions, gaps in door-to-door verification, inadequate field manpower, and inconsistencies in cross-checking demographic data contributed to errors that the group says remain unaddressed. Counsel appearing for the NGO reiterated that inclusion and deletion processes must strictly follow the statutory framework laid down in the Representation of the People Act to ensure that genuine electors are neither excluded nor overshadowed by inflated rolls.
The Commission maintained that the revision was conducted in line with established norms and was monitored at multiple administrative levels. It told the court that physical verification, block-level scrutiny, and technology-enabled checks were undertaken across Bihar. Officials argued that discrepancies flagged by the petitioners could stem from data snapshots taken at different stages of the revision cycle rather than from procedural lapses. The Commission also noted that continuous updating of the roll is permitted under law, and that numbers can fluctuate as electoral registration officers complete their verification rounds.
The court, however, observed that the allegations, even if contested, warranted the production of documents so that claims and counter-claims could be examined objectively. It signalled that transparency in the roll-revision process was essential, especially when a civil society organisation raises concerns supported by demographic analysis. Legal experts point out that while duplication can occur due to migration, clerical oversight, or incomplete field verification, the magnitude alleged in Bihar—if proven—could prompt wider review of administrative practices in densely populated states.
Petitioners also drew attention to earlier assessments of roll quality in Bihar, noting that several districts have historically struggled with synchronising voter data, particularly where seasonal migration is common. District-level officials often depend on household surveys to confirm residency, a task that becomes complicated when families split time between urban and rural locations. Electoral law allows the inclusion of voters who temporarily reside elsewhere but maintain their ordinary residence at home, creating additional layers of verification for officers managing large electorates.
The Commission’s affidavit is expected to detail the digital tools deployed during the revision, including de-duplication software, Aadhaar-seeding where permitted, and cross-checking across polling stations. The Supreme Court has previously highlighted that digital tools must be supplemented by ground verification to avoid wrongful deletions. The Bench’s direction suggests it wants a clear trail showing how each category of suspected duplication was handled and whether district officers followed uniform protocols.
Political parties have followed the proceedings closely, though the court made no reference to any political involvement in its comments. Parties in Bihar have long disagreed over the quality of the roll, often accusing rivals of benefiting from inflated voter lists. Election law specialists note that such disputes periodically surface in states with high mobility, but judicial intervention typically occurs only when data-driven petitions demonstrate potential systemic weaknesses.
Court records show that ADR’s petition was filed after it examined roll-revision figures released by the Commission earlier in the year. The group argues that the reduction in entries did not match what it believes to be the scale of duplication based on its field observations and comparative constituency analysis. The Supreme Court has now effectively asked the Commission to substantiate its own numbers by placing its methodology and district-level reports on record.