2025 സെപ്റ്റംബർ 23, ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച

Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Retrospective Application Of Laws-304839

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court summarised the principles on retrospective application of legislations.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made the discussion while holding that the 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act will apply to loans taken before the amendment came into force, if the default took place after the amendment.

The bench summarised the principles as follows :

(i) Presumption against retrospectivity is not applicable to enactments which merely affect procedure or change forum or are declaratory;

(ii) Retroactive/retrospective operation can be implicit in a provision construed in the context where it occurs ;

(iii) Given the context, a provision can be held to apply to cause of action after such provision comes into force, even though the claim on which the action may be based may be of an anterior date ; and

(iv) A remedial statute applies to pending proceedings and such application may not be taken to be retrospective if application is to be in future with reference to a pending cause of action ;

(v) SARFAESI Act is a remedial statute intended to deal with problem of pre-existing loan transactions which need speedy recovery.

Cause Title: M. RAJENDRAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S KPK OILS AND PROTIENS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 931

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-summarises-principles-on-retrospective-application-of-laws-304839


2025 സെപ്റ്റംബർ 7, ഞായറാഴ്‌ച

Thin vote margins in the past make Opposition wary of SIR in Bihar Amit Bhelari PATNA

The Opposition parties have been on an aggressive campaign in Bihar against the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls especially with the results of the past elections rankling them. They lost out to rivals by thin margins — one of these by just 12 votes — in several seats in the 2020 Assembly election. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav recently said the results in some 35 seats could be affected in the upcoming election if even just 1% of the voters were to be removed from the electoral rolls through the SIR. The Assembly has 243 seats. According to Mr. Yadav, a deletion of 1% of voters would mean removal of 7.9 lakh voters from the 7.9-crore strong electorate in the State. The party says it would result in approximately 3,251 voters being disenfranchised in every constituency. According to data from the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), in the 2020 Assembly election, the winning margin was under 1%, or fewer than 3,000 votes, in 35 constituencies. It was fewer than 5,000 in 52 constituencies. In three constituencies, the margin was fewer than 200, and in four, fewer than 500. In four constituencies each, the margin was fewer than 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 3,000, and 3,500. Similarly, in five, it was fewer than 2,500. An analysis published by The Hindu on November 17, 2020, a week after the results were declared, showed the NDA had won 21 seats by a margin of less than 2.5% votes, and the Opposition had won 22 such seats. In the Opposition side, Shakti Singh Yadav of the RJD lost the Hilsa seat in Nalanda district to Janata Dal(U) candidate Krishnamurai Sharan, alias Prem Mukhiya, by a margin of just 12 votes. In Chakia, Savitri Devi of the RJD lost to Independent candidate Sumit Kumar Singh by 581 votes. The RJD lost Raniganj by 2,304 votes, where the party’s Avinash Manglam was defeated by the JD(U)’s Achmit Rishidev. In Ramgarh, the party was just saved by 189 votes against a BSP candidate. The Congress’s Jitendra Singh faced defeat against the JD(U)’s Jayant Raj by 3,114 votes in Amarpur. In Belhar, the RJD’s Ramdeo Yadav lost to the JD(U)’s Manoj Yadav by 2,473 votes. In Bachwara, the Communist Party of India’s Abdhesh Kumar Rai lost to the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate by 484 votes. In Ara, the BJP’s Amrendra Pratap Singh defeated CPI(ML) Liberation candidate Aqyamuddin Ansari by 3,002 votes. The ruling coalition too faced defeats in many seats by thin margins. The JD(U)’s Narendra Kumar Singh, alias Bogo Singh, was defeated by the united Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) candidate Raj Kumar Singh by a mere 333 votes. The BJP’s Rohit Pandey lost from Bhagalpur to the Congress’s Ajit Sharma by 1,113. In Bahadurpur, the JD(U)’s Madan Sahani secured victory by 2,629 votes against the RJD’s Ramesh Choudhary. The Vikassheel Insaan Party, led by Mukesh Sahani, which was part of the NDA in 2020 and now with the Opposition, won Alinagar by defeating the RJD candidate by 3,101 votes. In Tikari, Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) candidate Anil Kumar defeated Suman Kumar of the Congress by a margin of 2,630 votes. In another close contest in Bhorey, JD(U)‘s Sunil Kumar emerged winner by defeating CPI (ML)(L)‘s Jitendra Paswan by 462 votes.

2025 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 20, ബുധനാഴ്‌ച

supreme-court-forms-search-committee-headed-by-justice-sudhanshu-dhulia-for-kerala-university-vice-chancellor-appointments-301165

Given the stalemate between the Kerala Government and the Kerala Governor regarding the appointment of University Vice Chancellors, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 18) appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as the Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee to shortlist names of regular Vice-Chancellor appointments in two State Universities - APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.

"We firmly believe that this impasse, which has been created, should be taken care of at earliest. In such circumstances, we appointed Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, former judge of this Court, as chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection University for both universities. 

The learned Chairperson is hereby authorized to constitute separate or joint Search-cum-Selection Committees for the two Universities.

The learned Chairperson shall preside over both the Search-cum-Selection Committees and thus composition of each such Committee shall be filled, preferably by two members from the list provided by the Chancellor and two from the list provided by the State. However, ultimately, we leave it to the better discretion of the learned Chairperson. The Search-cum-Selection Committee shall prepare a panel of at least 3 names (alphabetically and not in order of merit) for the two Universities.  The learned Chairperson is requested to constitute a Search- cum-Selection Committee for the two Universities as early as possible and within two weeks from today," ordered a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan.

The Chairperson must be paid an honorarium of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) for every day of proceedings of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, until the entire process is complete.

Chancellor must appoint VCs in the same order of preference recommended by the CM

The Court further ordered :

"The recommendations made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, duly endorsed by the learned Chairperson, shall be put up before the Chief Minister (and not the Minister-in-charge of a Department) for necessary consideration. In case the Chief Minister, State of Kerala has reasons to believe that any shortlisted person is unsuitable for appointment as Vice- Chancellor, the remarks to this effect along with the supporting material and the original record of the recommendation made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, shall be put up before the learned Chancellor within two weeks. The Chief Minister shall be entitled to recommend the shortlisted names in order of preference for appointment as Vice-Chancellors."

"The learned Chancellor upon receipt of record from the Chief Minister of the State, shall appoint the Vice-Chancellors out of the empanelled names, in the same order of preference as recommended by the Chief Minister of the State. In case the learned Chancellor has any reservation against the empanelled names and/or the remarks made by the Chief Minister of the State against any shortlisted candidate, the learned Chancellor shall be entitled to put up his own opinion on file, duly supported with reasons and relevant material," the Court added.

The Chancellor must accord his approval (save and except when there is a difference of opinion) within two weeks of receipt of file from the Chief Minister of the State.

In case(s) where the Chief Minister of the State has objected to the inclusion of any name in the panel and such objection is not acceptable to the Chancellor or where the Chancellor has an objection against empanelment of any particular name for which he has assigned his own reasons, all such files shall be put up before the Court. The Court will decide the issue.

On earlier occasion, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had asked the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for the State) to give four names for inclusion in the 5-member committee. One member will be nominated by the University Grants Commission.

The Court was dealing with a Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Governor, in his capacity as the Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which quashed the Chancellor's appointment of temporary Vice Chancellor of the University without the State Government's recommendation.

On July 30, the Court had urged the Chancellor and the Government to resolve the issue amicably to ensure the appointments of regular VCs. The Court had also clarified that until regular VC appointments are completed, it would be open for the Kerala Governor to re-appoint the present temporary VCs.

Later, the Chancellor re-appointed Ciza Thomas & K Sivaprasad as interim VCs of Digital & Technological Universities, which the State Government challenged by filing an application.

Background

The High Court held in the impugned order that the Governor (Chancellor) can appoint a temporary VC only with the recommendation of the State Government for a period not exceeding six months.

In November 2024, the Chancellor appointed Dr. K. Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology, respectively. These appointments were quashed by a single bench of the High Court on May 19. On July 14, a division bench of the High Court upheld the single bench's decision.

The High Court noted that as per Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act, where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Technological University or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, recommended by the Government, to be the Vice Chancellor for a period of not exceeding six months in the aggregate.

Case Details: THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS| SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Click Here To Read/Download Order



if-bills-can-be-withheld-without-returning-to-assembly-wont-elected-govts-be-at-governors-whims-supreme-court-asks-301402

If Governors can simply withhold their assent to Bills without returning them to the Legislative Assembly, would it not place the Governments elected by the majority at the whims and fancies of the Governor, asked the Supreme Court today during the hearing of the Presidential Reference on questions relating to the grant of assent to Bills.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar was hearing the arguments of Solicitor General of India.

SG Tushar Mehta submitted that, as per Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President's consideration, or return the Bill to the Assembly. SG argued that if the Governor says that he was withholding the assent, then it means that the "Bill dies." The Governor need not return the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration if assent was withheld, according to the SG. 

CJI Gavai then asked if such a power is recognised, would it not enable the Governor to withhold the Bill indefinitely? "According to you, withholding means the Bill falls through? But then, if he does not exercise the option of resending for reconsideration, he will withhold it for time immemorial," CJI said.

SG said that the Constitution itself has given that discretion to the Governor.

"Are we then not giving total powers to the Governor to sit in appeals? The Government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the Governor," CJI observed.

The SG argued that the 3-judge bench's judgment in the Punjab Governor case, which held that the Governor must return the Bill to the assembly if he was withholding assent, was contrary to precedents of 5-judge bench judgments. In the Punjab Governor case, the Court held that the Governor's power to withhold assent as per Article 200 must be read with the first proviso to Article 200, which speaks of returning the Bill to the Assembly.  The SG argued that the interpretation in the Punjab Governor case was "erroneous". The two-judge bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case followed the Punjab Governor case, which is in conflict with various larger bench decisions exactly on the same point, he added.

When the bench asked if the Constituent Assembly debated the meaning of the word 'withhold', SG Mehta replied in the negative. Justice Narasimha pointed out that the term 'withhold' is used twice in Article 200, first in the main provision and second in the proviso.

The Solicitor maintained that 'withholding' was an independent option available to the Governor. To illustrate, the SG said that if a State legislature passed glaringly egregious laws such as removing reservations altogether, or barring the entry of persons from other states, or mandating that its people must speak only one particular language, giving absolute immunity to the entire Cabinet from prosecutions, or barring central agencies from exercising their powers in the State, or undermining the powers of the President or the PM, etc, the Governor would be justified in withholding the Bill.

SG Tushar Mehta said that the power of withholding is to be exercised by the Governor rarely and sparingly to deal with such extraordinary situations. 

The SG submitted that the Governor is not just a "postman" to mechanically approve the Bills, and that he was representing the Union of India and the President. "A person who is not directly elected is not a lesser person," the SG said, asserting that the Governor was a person upon whom the Constitution has reposed trust to discharge Constitutional functions.

SG Mehta maintained that any other reading would make the power of withholding redundant. The idea is not to confer discretion on the Governor to "kill the Bill," he clarified. He added that the three-judge bench in the Punjab Governor judgment did not record the findings of the five-judge bench, including Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary's judgment, which says the Bill falls through once the Governor withholds it. 

"Neither textually nor contextually, it is possible to conclude that the term withhold will have to be read as a temporary suspension of powers of granting assent till first proviso works out. There is no concept of temporary withholding of any bills. If the framers of the Constitution wanted to link the term withhold in the main part of Article 200 to read only in the context of first proviso, two things would have been provided a)the term withhold in the main part would have been qualified with the term subject to first proviso mentioned therein. b) the first proviso would have mentioned that the Bill so withheld shall be reconsidered by the House, which is not there," SG Mehta said.

Justices Kant, Narasimha and Nath, on the other hand, reiterated that the withholding of assent has to be read with the word 'unless', that is, the Bill falls through unless the procedure indicated in the first proviso is not followed. They added that even the Chaudhary judgment says the same.

The CJI added that they have not been referred to any judgment which says that the Governor can permanently withhold assent.

Justice Nath averred that if the intention was that there was a fourth option with the Governor, that is to return the Bill to Assembly and refer it for the President if the defects are not cured, then it would have been provided along with the line of options namely, giving assent, withholding assent and reserving it for the President. "Why did they need a separate option for that? why proviso for that? it could have been an option in the main," questioned.

At one point, Justice Narasimha said that the process of constitutional interpretation is not "frozen" and if the Governor exercises withholding simpliciter as the second option suggested by the SG, and matters come to an end, it could really be counterproductive as the political process is not "adjudicatory". He said that, for instance, if the Governor decides to withhold the Bill but when the political process "knocks at his door" and the Chief Minister says, they will find a solution and the Governor agrees to return the Bill to the Assembly to cure the defect. That way, the options must remain "open-ended".

"The way political process occurs is not adjudiciatory, even assuming the Governor says I withhold, political process can knock his doors and he can still open it and say, I will send it back to you, you consider and send it back. But to say if it comes for the first time he says, I withhold, the matter comes to an end. It can't be like that. It is counterproductive to the power of the Governor and counterproductive to the legislative process also. It has to be in a situation where it is open-ended. We see the point, what you are saying is, grossly a case falling under List I, he could say no but he could also say, please modify it," Justice Narasimha remarked.

Justice Kant also added that if withholding simpliciter is exercised, it makes the option of granting assent and reserving it for the President "defunct". He stated that the Governor exercises wide powers and an embargo, which is not there, should not be read into the provision. 

Live updates can be followed here.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/if-bills-can-be-withheld-without-returning-to-assembly-wont-elected-govts-be-at-governors-whims-supreme-court-asks-301402

130th-constitution-amendment-bill-removal-by-president-governor-of-minister-detained-for-30-days-lok-sabha-refers-to-joint-parliamentary-committee-301430

The introduction of the 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposes to oust Central or State Ministers from office if they are detained for 30 days in serious offenses, was met with heavy opposition in the Lok Sabha today.

The Bill was introduced by Home Minister Amit Shah, alongwith a motion to refer it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. The motions were cleared by a voting process and the Bill accordingly referred.

However, when the motion to introduce the Bills was moved, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, Indian National Congress leaders Manish Tewari and KC Venugopal, Revolutionary Socialist Party's NK Premachandran and Samajwadi Party's Dharmendra Yadav vehemently opposed it, while many others raised slogans.

"This violates principle of separation of powers, due process, undermines right of people to elect government. It gives free run to executive agencies based on flimsy allegations, suspicion. Only when an offense is proved beyond reasonable doubt, then only you can lose membership/post. But here, on mere accusation, the punishment of losing one's post will follow. It undermines representative Parliament democracy. This amendment would leave a Minister and CM at the mercy of executive agencies. Has the Home Minister read Art.74(1)? This Bill violates it. This is the 1933 gestapo boom. This government is hell-bent on creating a police state. This will be a death-knell. This is to ensure that democracy does not survive", said Owaisi.

The AIMIM leader, referring to Section 152 of BNS (which is said to have replaced 'sedition' law under IPC), highlighted Amit Shah's "promise" that sedition law will not be used. He claimed that the law has recently been used against a senior journalist of Assam.

"This Bill is destructive of Basic Structure of Constitution, which says there should be Rule of Law. Basis of Rule of Law is innocent until proven guilty. This Bill makes an Investigating Officer the boss of Prime Minister of India. It violates Art.21, the due process clause. Even framing of charge does not substantiate guilt. This Bill turns fundamentals of Art 21 on their head. It distorts Parliamentary democracy by displacing Will of the People. It opens doors for political misuse by instrumentalities of the state whose arbitrary conduct has been repeatedly frowned upon by the Supreme Court. It throws all constitutional safeguards to the winds - collective responsibility, judicial review, no confidence motion and disqualification on conviction", argued Manish Tewari.

"Bill was not circulated among members, [House] procedure not followed...Yesterday after 1 o clock, we received copy of Bill. What is the undue haste and urgency, I want to ask Home Minister...Members are having right to oppose Bill at the time of introduction. That is being curtailed" said Premachandran. Imputing a lack of bonafides, he further said, "This is with the malafide intention to destabilize opposition-rules states in various parts of the country".

Questioning the claim that the proposed law aims to maintain morality in the field of politics, Venugopal on the other hand highlighted that Amit Shah was himself arrested when he was a Minister in Gujarat. "Many are saying this is to bring morality in politics. When Hon'ble Home Minister was Minister in Gujarat, he was arrested! Whether he took morality...", he said.

This caused a huge uproar in the House. The Home Minister, on his part, clarified that he was arrested based on false accusations, yet he resigned from his post prior to arrest and did not accept any constitutional post until his name was cleared.

Even so, Venugopal asserted that the Bill is aimed at targeting Opposition governments. "This is to threaten people like Chandrababu Naidu and Nitish Kumar" he said.

Also Read - Centre Introduces Bill In Lok Sabha To Prohibit Online Money Games
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/130th-constitution-amendment-bill-removal-by-president-governor-of-minister-detained-for-30-days-lok-sabha-refers-to-joint-parliamentary-committee-301430

2025 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 13, ബുധനാഴ്‌ച

Kerala Governor Govt Deadlock Supreme Court Says It'll Constitute Search Committee For University VC Appointments-300746

Given the stalemate between the Kerala Government and the Kerala Governor regarding the appointment of University Vice Chancellors, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 13) said that it will constitute a Search Committee to shortlist the names for VC appointments in two State Universities - APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta (for the State) to give four names for inclusion in the 5-member committee. One member will be nominated by the University Grants Commission.

The bench has kept the matter tomorrow for further consideration.

The Court was dealing with a Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Governor, in his capacity as the Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment, which quashed the Chancellor's appointment of temporary Vice Chancellor of the University without the State Government's recommendation.

On July 30, the Court had urged the Chancellor and the Government to resolve the issue amicably to ensure the appointments of regular VCs. The Court had also clarified that until regular VC appointments are completed, it would be open for the Kerala Governor to re-appoint the present temporary VCs.

Later, the Chancellor re-appointed Ciza Thomas & K Sivaprasad as interim VCs of Digital & Technological Universities, which the State Government challenged by filing an application.

Today, the Attorney General said that in terms of the Court's direction of July 30, the Chancellor has appointed two temporary VCs after holding discussions with the Ministers. "We were acting completely in terms of your lordship's judgment," AG said.  

"If they want to suggest, what is the harm? What is their request today?" Justice Pardiwala asked. The AG stated that the State was insisting that even for appointing temporary VCs, the recommendations of the Government should be accepted.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, for the State of Kerala, said that the Government had constituted a search committee. "But we were met with a different committee constituted by the Chancellor himself, the search committee," Gupta submitted. The AG stated that, as per the UGC regulations, the Chancellor has the power to constitute the committee. When Gupta said that as per the state legislations, the Government can constitute the committee, the AG countered by saying that the state law was in conflict with the UGC regulations.

Gupta highlighted Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act, which says that the Chancellor may appoint a temporary VC as "recommended by the Government."

At this stage, the bench suggested a "way out" and said that the Court can constitute a committee based on the names given by both sides.

When the AG maintained that the Chancellor has the power to appoint the temporary VCs, Justice Pardiwala asked, "How did you ignore S.13(7)?"

The bench said that for the time being, it was not going to address the legal issues and would try to resolve the stalemate. "The Chancellor and State Government should sit for a cup of coffee," Justice Pardiwala suggested.

Gupta submitted that the issue was not of any  "power struggle" but of the larger aspect of federalism. "If the Chancellor appoints persons without any whiff of Kerala representation, ensures that there is no Kerala person, it will dilute federalism," he submitted.

The bench reiterated that its endeavour is to resolve the issue. Justice Pardiwala suggested to Gupta not to pursue the temporary VC issue till the Court finds a resolution for regular VC appointments.

"Since there is no consensus, we will constitute a Search Committee. Our endeavour is that regular VC is appointed, tomorrow top of Board. Mr Gupta, our respect to your client, don't precipitate on temporary VC issue. That does not mean the position of law changes," Justice Pardiwala said.

AG mentioned that in the West Bengal VC appointment issue, the Court constituted a committee headed by former CJI UU Lalit to select the names.

Background

The High Court held in the impugned order that the Governor (Chancellor) can appoint a temporary VC only with the recommendation of the State Government for a period not exceeding six months.

In November 2024, the Chancellor appointed Dr. K. Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology, respectively. These appointments were quashed by a single bench of the High Court on May 19. On July 14, a division bench of the High Court upheld the single bench's decision.

The High Court noted that as per Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act, where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Technological University or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, recommended by the Government, to be the Vice Chancellor for a period of not exceeding six months in the aggregate.

Case Details: THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS| SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025


2025 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 12, ചൊവ്വാഴ്ച

Bihar SIR Is IntensiveDeletion Exercise Yogendra Yadav Appears In Supreme Court With Two Persons Deleted As Dead By ECI From Draft-300679

In the pleas challenging the Election Commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, political activist Yogendra Yadav produced before the Supreme Court today two persons who have allegedly been declared dead in the ECI's draft electoral rolls.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and will continue the hearing tomorrow.

While Yadav's allegation was opposed by ECI counsel-Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, saying that instead of the "drama", Yadav could help the affected individuals in getting the rolls rectified, the bench said that there may have been an "inadvertent error", which could be rectified.

Besides the above allegation, Yadav raised many more submissions and gave facts and figures, whose analysis was applauded by Justice Kant. These included:

♦ Mass exclusion of voters in Bihar

Recalling the bench's earlier assurance that it would step in if mass exclusion of voters takes place, Yadav alleged that mass exclusion has already begun. He claimed that the number of voters likely to be excluded is much more than 65 lakhs and may rise up to 1 crore if ECI continues with the SIR. It was alleged that the exclusion of voters in Bihar is not a failure of implementation of the SIR process, but rather its design. "Consequences will be same wherever SIR is undertaken", Yadav said.

Based on a census-based projection, he argued that the total adult population of Bihar is 8.18 crores and should not be taken as 7.9 crores. "This figure does not suffer from counting of deaths or migrated [individuals]...a good electoral roll of Bihar should have 8 crore 18 lakh people, but it had 7.9 crores. So there was deficit of 29 lakhs to begin with...any exercise should have covered that", Yadav said.

♦ Data on voter exclusion should take into account number of adult people eligible to vote

Yadav argued that completeness, accuracy and equity are three parameters on which any electoral roll can be tested. However, on all 3 counts, the SIR has failed and has been counter-productive. "I want to suggest that we should not begin by looking at 7.9 crores. We should see what is the percentage of adults eligible to vote", he said.

It was emphasized that India fares way better than some of the developed countries in terms of how many people make it to the voter list. Based on international statistics, it was contended that when the onus of enumeration of voters (that is, their making it to the voter list) is shifted from the state to citizens, atleast one quarter of total voters are likely to get ousted and most of these would be belonging to poor, marginalized and ethnic groups. Bihar, which stood at 97% voter eligibility, has come down to 88% already "with one stroke", Yadav claimed. "There would be further deletions now", he said.

♦ Current SIR exercise different from 2003 Intensive Revision

On a specific query, Yadav submitted that in 2003, ECI did not conduct a special intensive revision in Bihar. Rather, it was an intensive revision exercise, which is markedly different from the present exercise. "Never in the history of this country has any revision ever asked all people to submit a form or to submit a document. NEVER", he exclaimed. Explaining the situation in 2003, Yadav said that the electoral rolls at the time were sought to be computerized and as such, electoral officers were given printouts and asked to go door-to-door. No form or document was asked for, he said.

While he acknowledged that intensive revision is a good exercise, Yadav assailed the 'SIR' for its two distinct components - requirement of enumeration form and presumption of non-citizenship. "These are unique, unprecedented and, in the eyes of my learned friend, illegal", he asserted. He further called on the ECI to supply a copy of the 2003 order of intensive revision, saying it is not available in public domain.

Yadav further countered ECI's stance that about 4.6 crore voters were already there in 2003 electoral rolls and therefore don't have to submit documents. "The number is approx. 2.5 crores", he said.

♦ Bihar SIR an exercise of mass deletion, with zero addition

Yadav vehemently argued that the Bihar SIR is the first exercise in the history of India where revision of electoral rolls has taken place with zero additions. "Every single revision has involved some addition", he said. In this regard, Justice Kant observed that there a revision can be intended at removing bogus voters. Yadav however questioned why the ECI has not found even a single person who ought to be added in the rolls. "It's extraordinary. This exercise was for intensive deletion, not revision. They say we can fill Form 6. But when they went to houses, they only looked for deletions...What happened to genuine additions?", he questioned.

Yadav also stated that there is evidence to show that women's names have been deleted in larger numbers compared to men, indicating an anti-women bias. "25 lakh men and 31 lakh women have been deleted", he said, while pointing out that if migration and deaths are reasons behind deletion of names, more number of men should have been deleted, as women rarely tend to migrate out of state alone and death rate is not higher among women. "We are witnessing perhaps the largest exercise of disenfranchisement, not in India, in the history of the world. Entire figure will cross 1 crore, if they are serious about what they are doing. We will break record of US in 19th century. This is a tectonic shift in universal adult franchise, because the onus has been shifted from state to the individual", he warned.

♦ BLOs' 'non-recommendation' of voters

Similar to Advocate Prashant Bhushan (appearing for ADR), Yadav assailed the booth-level officers' prerogative to 'not recommend' names of voters who duly filed their enumeration forms (which amounts to 'recommended for deletion' by BLO). He said that out of 7.24 crore voters, how many were 'not recommended' across Bihar is not known. But in case of two districts, he said that the figures stand at 10.6% and 12.6%. Yadav questioned the basis on which people were 'not recommended' by BLOs and why ECI was not sharing the data with the Court.

♦ ECI changes orders through press releases

Countering ECI's submission that people whose parents were part of the 2003 electoral rolls do not have to submit any certificate, Yadav said that the SIR order originally said that if a person is not in the 2003 rolls, he has to give his own and his parents' certificates. Then, a press release came which said that if one's parents were part of the 2003 rolls, the parents' certificates are not required and the person may only give his certificate. "Now, we hear a third thing - that you don't have to give your own certificate. I'm surprised. This is not what the order said. I have never heard of legal orders being changed through press release. So many changes have been made to this order. Atleast RBI has the courtesy to actually amend their orders, everytime they change. But ECI changes its legal orders through press release!", Yadav alleged.

♦ Adherence to ECI timeline wishful thinking; right to appeal not effectively available

Pointing to ECI's own data, Yadav said that while a total of 7.24 crore forms are to be scrutinized, ECI has set a limit of 3000 forms for every AERO. Rest is to be done by ERO. Based on his computation, every ERO would have to scrutinize 4678 forms every single day for the next few months to meet ECI deadline. Besides that, the ERO will also do enquiries of doubtful cases (approx. 800 every day) and handle flood crisis (in his capacity as BDO).

Insofar as ECI has been assuring that a person has rights to first and second appeal in case of deletion of name from draft roll, Yadav said that if last time's pattern is followed, on 30.09.2025, the electoral rolls will be frozen and questioned that if on 25.09.2025, ECI tells someone that his name (though in draft list) has been deleted from the final list, what can such a person do if he wants to contest?

It was contended that by the time the person would file an appeal, the electoral rolls would be frozen, determining his fate for the next 5 years. "This is the best way to throw any competitor out of elections. So it's not just about voters. Person who is not voter in Bihar cannot contest, this is dreadful", Yadav said.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 640/2025 (and connected cases)

Click Here To Read/Download Order


https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bihar-sir-is-intensive-deletion-exercise-yogendra-yadav-appears-in-supreme-court-with-two-persons-deleted-as-dead-by-eci-from-draft-300679