Politics
INDIA bloc asks Murmu to intervene in voter-roll dispute
The meeting increases scrutiny of election administration but cannot remove the CEC.
The meeting increases scrutiny of election administration but cannot remove the CEC.
Millions of names were missing from Bihar’s draft voter rolls after the ordered a detailed check. Voters and new applicants had little time to provide documents and other details. The Commission says names were left out because people had died, moved, appeared more than once, or had not completed the checks. Opposition parties say the process could stop poorer, frequently moving and undocumented people from voting. They also accuse the panel of changing the rules without enough openness.
The dispute has become a wider fight over election bodies. The allowed the Commission to carry out the review but said it had not approved a changed . leaders want Chief er Gyanesh Kumar to resign and have asked President Droupadi Murmu to step in. Their meeting can increase pressure but cannot remove him. That requires a , while courts review the forms, challenges and final rolls.
A 10-member INDIA bloc delegation was scheduled to meet President Droupadi Murmu at 8 p.m. on October 9 after seeking her intervention over the and demanding the CEC’s resignation. Reports described plans to present concerns about alleged voter-roll irregularities, but did not establish that the meeting had taken place or document its outcome.
After several days of demonstrations, INDIA bloc leaders held a at and repeated allegations of electoral irregularities involving the Bihar revision. The bloc said it would continue protesting until Gyanesh Kumar resigned. The BJP rejected the accusations and said the opposition should pursue available legal and .
MPs marched from Parliament toward the Election Commission headquarters in New Delhi and demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. Opposition leaders accused the Commission of facilitating alleged through unilateral or politically selective roll changes. Police stopped the march, and some protesters were detained.
The Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved any modified version of used for voter registration. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court had not authorised the altered form, after an -linked declaration appeared on the . The clarification intensified scrutiny of how the Election Commission implemented the verification process.
The Election Commission continued to defend the revision while challenges concerning forms, claims, objections and roll publication remained before the courts. The opposition’s demand for resignation did not itself remove the CEC, because removal of a follows the constitutional process applicable to a Supreme Court judge, requiring through the prescribed mechanism. The presidential meeting therefore created a channel for representation, not an immediate power to dismiss Gyanesh Kumar.
The Supreme Court examined challenges to the and the procedures used in Bihar. The Court upheld the Commission’s power to conduct the revision while scrutinising documentation, claims and objections, and the treatment of applicants seeking inclusion. The proceedings kept the final legal status of disputed exclusions under .
Opposition parties began coordinated protests and legal challenges, alleging that the revision created barriers for legitimate voters and could selectively alter the electorate. They sought greater disclosure of deletion data, easier correction procedures and safeguards before the final rolls were published. The Election Commission defended the exercise as lawful and necessary to protect .
The published after the Bihar revision excluded a large number of names. The Election Commission attributed omissions to reasons including death, migration, and failure to complete verification. Opposition parties alleged that genuine voters, including poorer and mobile populations, had been wrongly removed and demanded clearer, constituency-level explanations.
The Election Commission ordered a of Bihar’s , the first such intensive revision in the state since 2003. The exercise was presented as a full verification of voter eligibility rather than a routine annual update. Applicants for new registration were required to use Form 6 with an additional declaration, Annexure D.
The Bihar exercise required voters and applicants to complete and eligibility checks under a compressed schedule. The process introduced additional documentation requirements, including the declaration linked to , prompting concerns about access for people lacking standard records. The dispute later focused on whether these requirements exceeded ordinary electoral-roll procedures.