Abstract
Before the 2025 Assembly elections in Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducted a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. This article focuses on the shortcomings and flaws in this process. The exercise was portrayed as an administrative step to guarantee the accuracy and integrity of the voter list. However, there are various concerns about its implementation due to a lack of transparency and arbitrariness. This article tries to highlight major concerns by relying on the ongoing case of the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2025.
Introduction: What is SIR?
The ECI began a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral roll in June 2025. It made use of its authority under Section 21 and Article 324 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (ROPA). Three justifications supported this action: to guarantee that all eligible citizens are enrolled, to remove voters who are not eligible, and to get rid of mistakes like duplicate entries. ECI highlighted that SIR was necessary due to rapid urbanisation, migration, underreporting of deaths, and inclusion of foreign nationals. The SIR process was portrayed to strengthen democracy and ensure free and fair elections. However, after the release of the first draft of the electoral roll, it was reported that around 65 lakh voters were made ineligible. To make matters worse, the names and addresses of many voters were gibberish. This calls into question the lack of transparency, citizenship, and voting rights, casting doubt on the SIR’s design. The universal adult suffrage guaranteed by Article 326 of the Constitution may be viewed as being undermined by the SIR.
Key Words – SIR, right to vote, mass disenfranchisement, exclusionary practices, citizenship
Challenge to SIR: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
In July, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), along with members of Swaraj India and Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the SIR was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Several objections were raised. The SIR shifted the onus of inclusion from the state to the voter by requiring citizens already enrolled in the 2003 electoral roll to reapply through fresh enumeration forms. This goes away from the principle that inclusion must be presumed unless proven otherwise. Due to this, anyone who fails to fill out the form will be removed from the voter list. This was made cumbersome by refusing to accept Aadhar and ration cards and insisting on parental documents to prove citizenship. Advocates such as Indira Jaising and Manu Singhvi contended that the ECI had assumed the role of “citizenship tribunal,” which is beyond its statutory powers. The Home Ministry is the only body competent to determine citizenship status. The short timeline provided to submit documents was also said to be unrealistic due to the deficit of BLOs and a huge number of eligible voters (8 crore). The deletion of 65 lakh voters was described as an exercise of removal.
The ECI cited a number of earlier rulings, including Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), in which the Court determined that the ECI’s authority needed to be interpreted broadly and purposefully. In accordance with Article 324 read with Section 21 of the ROPA, it defended the SIR as an exercise of its constitutional powers of supervision and control. The goal was to ensure an accurate voter list to enable free and fair elections.
ECI as the “Citizenship Tribunal”: Scope of ECI’s Power
While there were many concerns raised, this article aims to limit itself to the contention of determining citizenship and its impact. A major point of contention was whether the ECI had gone beyond its constitutional role by engaging in citizenship verification.
The ECI required proof of parental citizenship and excluded Aadhar and ration cards to make any determination. Senior counsel Singhvi described the SIR as a “citizenship test in camouflage.” He argued that the ECI was presuming ineligibility rather than presuming eligibility, and this amounts to a reversal of democratic principle. He invoked the case of Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), which held that citizenship can be revoked only by an order of the Central Government, and not through electoral processes. [Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) 1995 Supp (1) SCC 627]. The ECI’s insistence on parental birth certificates was leading to exclusions. It was highlighted that birth registration and digital access remain limited in Bihar, thus raising the chances of exclusion of eligible voters. On the scope of Article 324, the petitioners argued that the ECI has wide powers, but it must not be unlimited. It must act within the framework of the ROPA. The next section highlights how the Court’s directions incidentally tried to address the question of citizenship.
Judicial Interventions
The Supreme Court intervened on limited grounds to ensure transparency and fairness. It was highlighted that the ECI had not disclosed the list of deleted voters. Justice Joymala Bagchi directed the district offices to display these names under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors, 1960. The Court pointed out that transparency and access to information are the hallmarks of a democracy. Following this, the Bench asked whether the ECI has published the names of the 3.66 lakh excluded voters and demanded clarity on whether new voters were added to the final roll.
It issued two directions. The ECI was ordered to publish detailed information on voter additions and deletions to enable affected citizens to verify. It was also held that Aadhar shall be treated as a valid identity document after authentication. It was observed that the Aadhaar can be used for establishing one’s identity as per Section 23(4) of the ROPA. On Aadhar serving as proof of citizenship, the Bench said that it cannot be used to prove citizenship. The inclusion of Aadhaar to determine eligibility seems to address the possible exclusion that would have been caused by the ECI’s insistence on parental birth documents.
Conclusion: Continuing Conundrum
The Bihar Electoral Roll Conundrum highlights the tension to balance the principle of universal suffrage. The SIR exercise was intended to ensure an accurate electoral roll, but it has sparked apprehensions over large-scale exclusions. The final electoral roll reports that around 3.66 lakh voters have been excluded. After hearing complaints about large-scale deletions, the Court intervened. It directed the ECI to provide detailed data on the 3.66 lakh voters with reasons for exclusions. It has also directed that all individuals whose names have been excluded should be provided free legal aid and assistance to enable them to challenge the exclusion. The court emphasized transparency and accountability in the revision process. How to maintain electoral integrity without sacrificing inclusivity and the fundamental right to vote is a persistent dilemma that is reflected in the Bihar Electoral Roll case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Farzeen Zaman
