The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in Bihar has set off one of the most politically charged and legally scrutinized exercises in recent electoral history. The Commission describes the process as a countrywide, house-to-house voter verification and registration programme, beginning with Bihar before rolling out to other states. Supporters argue it is aimed at cleansing voter rolls of ineligible entries; critics see it as a hurried and opaque exercise that risks disenfranchising large numbers of legitimate voters just months before the state’s assembly elections.

The SIR, ordered on 24 June 2025, is a term absent from both the ECI’s regulations and its electoral roll manuals, making it an administrative innovation of uncertain legal standing. In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the ECI asserted it is “fully competent to require a person claiming citizenship by birth to produce relevant documents for inclusion in the electoral roll.” It cited Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which lists citizenship as a qualification for registration as a voter.

The Commission further argued that while the Union government holds exclusive powers to decide on citizenship loss in cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality, it is within the ECI’s remit to verify citizenship in all other situations. This position has been challenged by opposition parties and civil society groups, who have taken the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning not only the ECI’s interpretation of its powers but also the rationale for launching such a sweeping revision at this time.

Narrower Documentation Rules

One of the most contentious aspects of the Bihar revision is the restriction of acceptable proof of citizenship to 11 specific documents. Commonly used IDs such as Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) issued before January 2025 have been excluded. Additionally, voters enrolled up to 2003 and their children must produce proof of that enrolment to remain on the rolls.

This approach places the burden of proof squarely on citizens. Critics say that this risks excluding eligible voters, particularly those from poorer, rural, and marginalized communities, who may struggle to access or retrieve the required paperwork. In some districts, like Kishanganj, the sudden demand for domicile certificates—one of the required documents—has overwhelmed local administrative offices, creating backlogs that threaten timely processing before election deadlines.

The controversy deepened when it emerged during hearings that approximately 6.5 million names had been removed from Bihar’s draft electoral roll. The Supreme Court promptly asked the ECI to explain the scale of these deletions and the procedures followed. In response, the Commission assured the court that no deletion will occur without prior notice to the voter, an opportunity to be heard, submission of supporting documents, and the issuance of a reasoned order.

The ECI also stated that a two-tier appeal mechanism is available to any voter who believes they have been wrongfully removed. However, this has not quelled public concern, especially after reports highlighted data-entry anomalies — such as over 292,000 entries listing “0” as the house number — in the draft roll. The Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar has described these as clerical errors, but opposition leaders have seized on them as evidence of procedural flaws.

Allegations from the Opposition

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been one of the most vocal critics of the SIR. He has accused the Union government and the ECI of working in concert to “steal votes” in Bihar to help the BJP retain power in the state. Gandhi claims that similar tactics have been used in earlier elections, suggesting that mass deletions and selective documentation requirements amount to a politically motivated purge.

His charge was given unexpected weight when senior BJP minister Nitin Gadkari revealed that about three lakh names, including those of his family members, had been deleted from the voter list in his own constituency. While Gadkari presented this as an administrative oversight, it has been cited by critics as proof that the process can affect voters across the political spectrum.

Opposition parties, under the umbrella of the INDIA bloc, have escalated their protest. Leaders plan to march to the ECI’s offices, and CPI(ML) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya has described the SIR as a “daylight robbery” of votes, demanding that the Commission release detailed data on deletions and the reasons behind them.

The BJP’s Defence

The BJP has dismissed allegations of manipulation as baseless and politically motivated. Party spokespersons argue that the Congress and its allies question the ECI’s impartiality only when they lose elections, not when they win. BJP leaders insist that voter list revisions are a routine and necessary part of maintaining electoral integrity, removing ineligible entries such as the names of deceased individuals or those who have moved out of a constituency.

For the BJP, the controversy reflects more on opposition anxiety than on ECI conduct. The party points out that the Commission has publicly committed to following due process and to protecting the rights of all eligible voters.

Former Election Commissioners and constitutional experts have offered differing views on the SIR. Some argue that the ECI is well within its rights to verify the citizenship of voters and to update rolls comprehensively. Others warn that the combination of strict documentation requirements, lack of public awareness, and limited administrative capacity could lead to mass disenfranchisement.

Civil society organisations have also criticised the lack of transparency. The ECI has so far declined to disclose how many enumeration forms were submitted without acceptable proof, how many claims have been rejected, or the detailed reasons for deletions. Activists argue that without this information, it is impossible for citizens to independently verify the fairness of the process.

A Test Case for the Nation

Bihar is only the starting point for the SIR, with the ECI planning to implement similar revisions nationwide. This makes the state’s experience a test case for both the operational feasibility and the political acceptability of the exercise. If the process is seen as fair, it could strengthen the ECI’s credibility. If it is perceived as biased or flawed, it could damage trust in India’s electoral institutions for years to come.

The Supreme Court’s eventual rulings on the petitions challenging the SIR will set important precedents for the scope of the ECI’s powers and the safeguards required in voter verification exercises. In the meantime, the Commission faces the challenge of balancing electoral integrity with voter inclusion, while navigating the charged political climate.

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental democratic principle: the right to vote. This right cannot be undermined, whether through negligence, overreach, or partisan manoeuvring. Ensuring an accurate and inclusive electoral roll is a complex task, but it must be undertaken with the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and fairness.

As Bihar’s SIR continues under the glare of political crossfire, one-point commands universal agreement: the credibility of India’s democracy depends on getting this balance right. The process must protect against fraudulent entries without creating new barriers for genuine voters. How the ECI manages this delicate task will shape not only the outcome of the Bihar elections but also the trust citizens place in the democratic process itself.

(The writer is a National Award-Winning Senior Journalist & Founder NYOOOZ.COM)

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

₹ 10 - ₹ 1000

NYOOOZ FRIEND

₹ 2000 - ₹ 5000

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.