Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 5: The Election Commission of India’s move to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar on the eve of the state Assembly elections was challenged in the Supreme Court on Saturday for violating the rights to adult suffrage, non-discrimination, dignity and equality of the ordinary and marginalised people of the State.
The petition filed by NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, contended that the SIR communication from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on June 24 breach the provisions of Representation of People’s Act, 1950 and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The SIR order, if not set aside, can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise lakhs of voters from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the petition submitted.
The opposition INDIA bloc had earlier communicated to the Election Commission of India their apprehension that the SIR could disenfranchise at least two crore voters in the State, especially the migrant population. A delegation of INDIA bloc leaders had held a nearly three-hour-long meeting with the ECI on this issue this week.
The petitioners said the documentation requirements of the directive, lack of due process as well as the unreasonably short timeline for SIR of electoral roll in Bihar pose the risk of throwing out the names of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement.
Mr Bhushan said the SIR move shifts the onus of being on the voters’ list from the State to the citizens. “It has excluded identification documents such as Aadhar or ration cards which further make marginalised communities and the poor more vulnerable to exclusion from voting… As per estimates over three crore voters and more particularly from marginalised communities (such as SC, STs and migrant workers) could be excluded from voting due to the stringent requirements as mentioned in the SIR order. That the current reports from Bihar, where SIR is already underway, show that lakhs of voters from villages and marginalised communities do not possess the documents as being sought for them,” the petition highlighted.
The petition said the SIR process in Bihar was violative of Article 326 (adult suffrage) in so far as it requires a voter to provide documents to prove his/her citizenship and also citizenships of his/her mother or father, failing which his/her name would not be added to the draft electoral roll and can be deleted.
“ECI has issued unreasonable and impractical timeline to conduct SIR in Bihar with close proximity to State elections which are due in November 2025. There are lakhs of citizens (whose names did not appear in 2003 electoral roll) who do not possess the documents as required under the SIR order, there are many who may be able to procure the documents but the short timeline mentioned in directive may preclude them from being able to supply the same within the time period… Bihar is a State with high poverty and migration rates where many lack access to documents like birth certificates or parental records,” the petition noted.
Since 2003, five general elections and five assembly elections have taken place in Bihar with continuous addition and deletion of names in Bihar’s electoral roll. Moreover, Special Summary Revision (SSR) was already conducted between October 29, 2024 and January 6, 2025 which addressed issues such as migration and ineligible voters due to death or other reasons. “Thus, there is no reason for such a drastic exercise in a poll-bound State in such a short period of time, violating right to vote of lakhs of voters,” the petition argued.
At the meeting with the ECI earlier this week, about 20 leaders from 11 parties of the Opposition bloc had conveyed their strong objections regarding the SIR exercise. Drawing a parallel with the 2016 demonetisation exercise, which was colloquially referred to as notebandi, the Opposition termed the electoral revision “votebandi”. Citing the ECI’s own estimate that at least 20% of Bihar’s population comprises migrant workers, the leaders expressed fears that such individuals could be arbitrarily removed from the rolls.
After the meeting, Congress leader and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had said the delegation raised three primary concerns: the necessity, timing, and feasibility of the revision exercise. “Firstly, we asked if the last revision was in 2003, for 22 years, four or five Bihar Assembly polls have happened – were all those elections faulty and imperfect?” Mr Singhvi asked. He pointed out that the 2003 revision was held well in advance of national and State elections.
“In contrast, this revision, which affects the second largest electorate in the country with over eight crore voters, is being carried out in just two months,” he said. “We believe that migratory persons, who travel to work, cannot be at the beck and call of the enumerator.” Mr Singhvi further stated that “disenfranchisement” is the gravest attack on the Constitution’s basic structure. “We have said that upwards of 2.5 or three crore persons – let us assume the minimum two crore – may be disenfranchised by this exercise. Why choose to do this at the cusp of the elections?” he asked.
Mr Singhvi had also questioned why the ECI had “jettisoned and abandoned” the Aadhaar card, which has previously been used to confirm voter identities. He raised concerns over the lack of transparency, noting that political parties were not informed in advance about the planned revision. “EC seems completely disinclined to consider our submissions,” he said.
Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Manoj Jha had described the meeting as “less than amicable”. “20% of the population, who migrate in search of livelihood, are in danger of losing their voting rights. The purpose of this exercise is exclusion rather than inclusion,” Mr Jha said.
Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya said the Opposition came away from the meeting even more concerned. “The EC clarified that only those who are ordinary residents will find their names on the electoral roll. Those who are forced to leave the State looking for livelihood, in EC’s view, will not be considered ‘ordinary residents’,” he said. Mr Bhattacharya also questioned the logistics of reaching eight crore voters during the monsoon season.
Responding to the Opposition’s concerns, the Commission said that the SIR was being conducted in accordance with Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the instructions issued on June 24. The Commission had also claimed that each concern raised during the meeting was addressed in full.
