Opposition political parties have threatened to boycott the Bihar elections slated for November this year in protest against the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directive to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar just months before the assembly elections in November. As per the ECI’s own estimates some 35 lakh voters in Bihar stand being disenfranchised as per the SIR. Central to the controversy is the ECI’s issuance of three documents which have sparked fears of widespread “disenfranchisement.” The order appears to grant a “presumption of citizenship” only to voters registered before January 1, 2003, casting doubt on the status of those listed thereafter. Critics contend that this arbitrary cutoff effectively strips many citizens of their voting rights. According to Article 326 of the Constitution, citizenship is an essential qualification for voting. Yet, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, along with Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, merely require residency and a self-declaration of citizenship, not a mountain of documentation. Bihar’s SIR insists on 11 documents for proof of citizenship vastly exceeds the norms and raises questions of fairness and feasibility. The petitioners – Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and various political leaders- have argued that the ECI’s move to shift the burden of proof onto voters themselves is unwarranted and unjust. The petitioners said the affected groups often lack access to the demanding and varied documents listed by the ECI, putting their fundamental franchise at risk. The Supreme Court’s partial intervention allowed the ECI to proceed but asked it to accept documents such as the Aadhaar card, voter ID, and ration card as valid for the exercise, recognizing the urgent need to safeguard voter rights.In response, the ECI informed that the SIR was no routine revision. Rather, ECI claimed SIR as a “de novo preparation” of the electoral roll, effectively reopening questions regarding the citizenship status of millions of voters. The ECI’s defense of excluding voter ID and Aadhaar as valid documents only deepened skepticism. ECI argument that Aadhaar does not confirm citizenship- contradicts the practical reality that no better document exists for proving identity and residence swiftly and widely in India. The Supreme Court clarified that citizenship enforcement falls under the Home Ministry’s domain, not the ECI’s, highlighting a crucial jurisdictional limitation. The SIR in Bihar has disenfranchised around 35 lakh voters. It has triggered accusations of partisan bias, particularly from non-BJP parties, and follows a series of past criticisms regarding the ECI’s impartiality. As an autonomous constitutional authority, the ECI’s foremost duty is to protect the sanctity of the electoral process without discrimination. Its recent actions risk undermining public confidence and creating a perception of manipulation. The timing of this revision, so close to elections, poses logistical challenges. Enormous administrative resources are required for such an undertaking, and hurried implementation risks mistakes that could exclude valid voters or improperly include others. Marginalized and uninformed citizens face higher risks of being disenfranchised, which contradicts the democratic ethos of inclusivity and fairness. Transparency and neutrality are pillars of the ECI’s credibility, and these have come under serious question. If the electorate perceives this revision as politically motivated, it could severely erode trust not only in the Bihar polls but in the entire election management apparatus, with long-term consequences for India’s democracy.
Saturday, July 26, 2025