Monday, Sep 01, 2025 23:00 [IST]
Last Update: Sunday, Aug 31, 2025 17:17 [IST]
NEW DELHI, (IANS): The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a strong rebuttal
to allegations made in a recent media report claiming large-scale duplication
in Bihar’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
In a detailed statement on Sunday, the Chief Electoral
Officer (CEO) of Bihar clarified that the draft rolls published under the SIR
2025 are provisional in nature and explicitly meant for public scrutiny.
“Any alleged duplication at this stage cannot be
construed as a final error,” the statement by CEO Bihar said on X, stressing
that the law provides for objections, verification, and correction before final
publication.
Addressing the figure of 67,826 “dubious duplicates”
cited in the report, the CEO argued that it “is based on data-mining and
subjective matching of name/relative/age combinations”, adding that, “These
parameters, without documentary and field verification, cannot conclusively
prove duplication.”
In rural Bihar, it is common for multiple individuals to
share identical names and ages, making such digital extrapolations unreliable,
the post explained.
The ECI highlighted that its ERONET 2.0 system flags
probable duplicates as Demographically Similar Entries (DSEs), which are only
removed after field verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Electoral
Registration Officers (EROs).
Citing examples from Valmikinagar, officials said mere
numerical claims cannot establish factual duplication without detailed reports,
the poll panel said.
Individual cases like “Anjali Kumari” of Triveniganj and
“Ankit Kumar” of Laukaha were described as clerical or migration-related
errors, both of which have already been corrected through Form 8 submissions.
The rebuttal also dismissed claims that making rolls
“non-scrapable” hindered transparency, calling it a safeguard under Rule 22 of
the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in line with Supreme Court directions
in Kamalnath vs ECI (2018).
Reiterating statutory safeguards, the CEO underlined that
Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, empowers EROs to
delete duplicates.
“The draft roll is subject to continuous scrutiny,
objections, and statutory corrections until the final list is published,” it
said, adding that “the report’s conclusions that the SIR 'facilitates fraud' or
that duplicates will decisively impact elections are speculative, premature,
and contrary to the legal framework governing electoral roll management.”