Should ECI Publish Names Excluded from Kerala Draft Rolls and Extend Objection Deadline?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has mandated the public disclosure of names excluded from Kerala's draft electoral rolls following the Special Intensive Revision, raising concerns about transparency and objection processes for affected individuals. This pivotal decision underlines the importance of electoral integrity and public participation.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court mandates public disclosure of excluded names.
- Concerns raised about transparency in the electoral process.
- Affected individuals need access to objection lists.
- Deadline for filing objections may be extended.
- Significant number of voters identified as deceased or untraceable.
New Delhi, Jan 15 (NationPress) - On Thursday, the Supreme Court instructed that the names of individuals removed from the draft electoral rolls in Kerala as a result of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) must be made accessible to the public, both at local offices and on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) official site.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was reviewing multiple petitions contesting the current SIR process within the state.
During the proceedings, the petitioners noted that approximately 24 lakh names had been removed from the draft rolls published by the election authority. They argued that without a published list of those excluded, affected individuals were unable to submit objections.
"They need to submit objections, but the list of those deleted is unavailable. Now, individuals must return and present objections regarding their deletion; that opportunity is absent for us," the counsel remarked.
Furthermore, it was argued that many individuals were incorrectly classified as deceased or marked as living outside Kerala.
The apex court, acknowledging this concern, mandated that the names of those excluded from the draft electoral list, if not previously displayed, must be exhibited at the gram panchayat offices and other public offices in villages, and this list should also be made available online.
The CJI-led bench also recommended that the ECI consider prolonging the deadline for filing objections against these deletions.
In a prior hearing, the Supreme Court allowed petitioners requesting additional time for the SIR process of electoral rolls in Kerala to present their representations to the ECI, instructing the poll body to address these by December 31, 2025.
Official data indicates that Kerala had 2,78,50,856 voters on the rolls before the revision. Out of these, 2,54,42,352 forms have been received, achieving a coverage of 91.35%. The remaining 8.65% — roughly 24,80,503 voters — have yet to submit their forms. The ECI has identified 6,49,885 voters as deceased, while 6,45,548 individuals have been classified as "untraceable" during the enumeration. Based on the forms collected, a booth-level draft list consisting of around 2.54 crore voters has been compiled and published.
Point of View
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes the necessity of transparency in electoral processes. It aims to uphold democratic values by ensuring that citizens are informed and able to challenge decisions affecting their voting rights. The integrity of the electoral system must remain a priority for all stakeholders involved.
NationPress
19/01/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court order regarding the draft electoral rolls in Kerala?
The Supreme Court ordered that the names of individuals excluded from the draft electoral rolls be made publicly available both at local offices and on the ECI's official website.
Why are individuals unable to file objections?
Affected individuals could not file objections because a published list of those excluded was not available, making it difficult to identify why they were removed.
How many voters were deleted from the draft rolls?
Approximately 24 lakh names were deleted from the draft rolls released by the Election Commission.
What is the deadline for filing objections?
The Supreme Court suggested that the ECI consider extending the deadline for filing objections to the deletions.
What other issues were raised during the hearing?
It was contended that some individuals were wrongly classified as deceased or marked as living outside Kerala.
