Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 26: Calling the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar a “grave fraud on the voters of Bihar,” the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), has claimed that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has failed to justify why the revision exercise must be rushed ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.
In its reply to the Election Commission’s counter to the petitions challenging in the Supreme Court the SIR exercise in Bihar, the ADR has argued that the poll body’s claim of having the constitutional authority to verify voters’ citizenship during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls flies in the face of past judgments.
It also called the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents “patently absurd,” noting that Aadhaar was widely accepted when applying for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residence documents.
Calling the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) a “grave fraud on the voters of Bihar,” ADR said reports from the ground suggest that the Commission’s own June 24 guidelines are being violated by the Block Level Officers (BLOs).
Announced on June 24, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls has sparked controversy over both its timing and the requirement that voters enrolled after 2003 produce multiple documents to stay on the rolls, raising concerns about the potential disenfranchisement of a large number of electors.
Acting on the Court’s directions, ADR — a non-profit that works on electoral reforms — filed its rejoinder on Saturday to the Commission’s counter-affidavit submitted on July 21. In that filing, the Commission had argued that under Article 326 of the Constitution it was within its rights to verify the citizenship of electors, and clarified that removal from the electoral rolls did not amount to termination of an individual’s citizenship.
The matter is next listed for hearing on July 28.
Responding to the EC’s argument that it has the authority to verify voters’ citizenship, the ADR said this contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings, including Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which held that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not those already on the rolls. ADR also cited Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the Court held that being listed on the electoral roll was prima facie proof of citizenship, and the burden of disproving it rested with the objector.
The rejoinder pointed to the Commission’s instructions for the Bihar leg of the SIR, which require all voters added after 2003 to submit documents from a list of 11 prescribed by the EC, effectively putting the onus on post-2003 electors to prove their eligibility, including age and citizenship. “…It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,” ADR submitted.
It argued that the Commission had not explained why the established process under the Representation of the Peoples’ Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with fresh documentation requirements and a new enumeration form. Nor, ADR added, had the Commission furnished any data on complaints about foreign nationals or illegal migrants being included on the rolls.
The poll body, in its July 21 affidavit, did not accept the apex court’s suggestion to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid proof for the ongoing intensive revision in Bihar, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained through fraudulent or falsified documentation.
In its rejoinder, the NGO said the 11 documents originally prescribed by the EC were equally susceptible to being procured using fake or false documentation. “The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI’s rejection of Aadhaar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd,” it added.
Pointing out that the BLOs themselves were violating the ECI’s June 24 guidelines, the ADR said the reports from the ground suggest that though the BLOs were required to visit each home and give each elector two forms, “Many voters have reported that their forms have been submitted online, despite never having met with any BLOs or signed any documents. Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,” the rejoinder alleged.
ADR also flagged the lack of any clear procedure for scrutiny of the enumeration forms or verification of documents, arguing that this has handed Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) “arbitrary, unbridled and excessive discretionary powers, which can disenfranchise a huge percentage of population in Bihar.”
The June 24 EC order had stated that the last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003, and that the 2003 roll would serve as “probative evidence” of citizenship for existing electors. For electors born after July 1, 1987, the EC required proof of citizenship of at least one parent, though it allowed them to rely on the 2003 roll if their parents were on it. ADR, however, questioned this distinction, arguing that it puts electors registered after 2003 at “a larger risk of disenfranchisement.”
It also questioned why the ECI had not placed on record the order of the 2003 revision and asked the court to direct it to do so. In the case of a 2004 order for intensive revision in North East states, which is available publicly, only new electors were asked to supply documents. The 2004 exercise was conducted over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005), while the Bihar roll is being revised within a three-month window from June 25 to September 30, it said.
It said the EC had also not explained why the SIR must be completed before the Bihar Assembly elections, or why the 2025 electoral roll, which underwent revision and was published in January, cannot be used for the upcoming polls.
ADR argued that updating the electoral roll was a continuous process that already accounts for migration, deaths, and other demographic changes. It cited a January 7 press release by the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer, which noted that the Special Summary Revision 2025 was conducted on the EC’s directions and had resulted in the addition of 12.03 lakh names and the deletion of 4.09 lakh.
ADR also referred to the EC’s instruction dated August 11, 2023, directing Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of all states and Union Territories to delete names from the rolls in cases of shifting, demographic similar entries (DSEs), and death.
In its counter, EC had said the SIR was being held to address the concerns of political parties. To this, ADR said “not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order. The concerns of political parties were on the issue of addition of non-existent votes and deletion of genuine votes supporting the opposition parties and on the issue of casting of votes after closure of polls.”
The legal challenge to the Bihar SIR was first heard on July 10 by a two-judge vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Supreme Court declined to restrain the Election Commission from going ahead with the exercise, it suggested that the poll panel also consider accepting Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards — in addition to the list of 11 prescribed documents — for updating the rolls. The Court allowed the Commission to file a counter-affidavit by July 21 and listed the matter for a further hearing on July 28.
By Friday, the Commission’s deadline for collecting enumeration forms had passed. The EC said it had received forms from 7.23 crore electors, who would be included in the draft electoral roll. It had pointed out that around 65 lakh names would be deleted from the electoral rolls as those electors were found to have died, shifted permanently, been enrolled in two places, or were untraceable, the poll panel said.
Additional deletions may follow after the draft roll is published, as documents submitted by the 7.23 crore electors will be scrutinised before the final roll is released on September 30. Those excluded from the draft roll will have the opportunity to file claims and objections between August 1 and September 1.
The ADR said the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are vested with broad and unchecked discretion that could result in disenfranchisement of a significant segment of Bihar’s population. In particular, it has highlighted that a single ERO is tasked with handling the enumeration forms of over 3 lakh individuals. The reply also cited media reports claiming that enumeration forms are being filled in the absence of voters.
“This lack of defined procedure enables EROs to act arbitrarily and to exercise their discretion in a manner that is susceptible to misuse and undermines the integrity of the electoral process and democracy which is a fundamental right,” the rejoinder states. It has further said that the affected voters would not get sufficient time to have their appeals adjudicated in time.
On the ECI’s explanation that the SIR was necessary due to migration of voters, ADR has said the process of updating the electoral list all over the country has been a continuous process. With regard to Bihar, it said that the deadline of three months to complete the SIR put a lot of eligible voters under “huge risk of disenfranchisement.”
“The exclusion of voters, as pointed out by the petitioners is currently playing out on the ground, with many electors without documents in no position to provide the same. With elections stated to be held in October-November 2025, there is no time for a large number of voters — both who do not have documents but have submitted form and whose names do not find a mention in draft roll to get themselves included in the rolls. Moreover, the impact of deletion of migrated electors can be substantial if they are clustered within a few constituencies and demographics.”
The top court is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging ECI’s SIR notification, on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution and departs from procedures prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
ADR in its plea has argued that SIR can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of citizens from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country.
On the other hand, the ECI has defended its June 24, 2025 directive, asserting that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
It told the Court that the exercise was necessitated by factors such as urban migration, demographic changes and concerns raised about inaccuracies in the existing rolls, which had not undergone an intensive revision for nearly two decades. The poll body has said the SIR was essential to ensure that only eligible citizens are included on the rolls ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections later this year.
Meanwhile, the Congress leader and the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Saturday again slammed the Election Commission for being “biased” and asserted it was important to defeat the BJP in its “main base” of Gujarat.
Addressing a meeting near Anand of the Congress district unit chiefs in Gujarat, Mr Gandhi used cricketing terms to accuse the ECI of being a “biased umpire” because of which the Congress has been losing elections. “In cricket, if you get out time and again, you can start doubting yourself. But then you realise you are getting out not because of your fault. It is the umpire who is biased. He also asserted that the Congress lost the 2017 Gujarat polls due to the ECI’s dubious voters’ list.
Mr Gandhi also attacked the BJP and RSS while likening the nation to a temple where everybody can come and pray, but the BJP-RSS was controlling who gets what as “Prasad.” “They (BJP-RSS) decide what is to be given if a SC, ST or OBC comes and if Adani or Ambani comes,” Gandhi said.