The Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has triggered confusion, protests, and legal challenges. With claims of potential disenfranchisement and the risk of creating “second-class citizens”, the process has become a major flashpoint ahead of elections. Jagdeep Chhokar, co-founder of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), explains the legal, political, and social implications in this Capital Beat conversation.

Have you ever seen an exercise like this by the Election Commission before?

I have not seen anything like this before. The whole process seems chaotic. Recently, a full-page ad in Hindi newspapers said voters could submit forms even without documents initially and provide them later. But the EC’s press note said documents are still required either before July 25 or during the claims and objections period. It’s confusing.

So, has this ad led to more confusion on the ground?

Yes, I believe it was meant to create confusion. BLOs (Booth Level Officers) have been told verbally to collect as many forms as possible, with or without documents. The aim appears to be to announce large numbers of forms collected, even if they’re incomplete or invalid.

Many are calling this a rollback or easing of rules. How do you see it?

It’s not a rollback. The confusion seems deliberate to befuddle voters and the public. The basic requirements for documents still stand. The sword of uncertainty still hangs over voters.

Absolutely. Imagine a village where 400 out of 500 voters find their names missing on election day. That’s a recipe for social unrest. You can’t take away voting rights from people who have been voting for decades.

Do you think the Supreme Court will stall this process?

I can’t predict the court’s decision, but we have a strong case. The EC has no authority to change voter eligibility criteria. The law is clear. The Supreme Court should rule by the Constitution, not public pressure. There’s hope because past rulings on criminalisation of politics and electoral bonds have shown the court can act.

Why do you think the EC chose to rush this revision now?

That’s the mystery. The EC could have done this over a year or two. Doing it in a flood-prone, migrant-heavy, low-literacy state in just a month is baffling. The hurry makes no sense and raises serious questions.

Is this a legitimate exercise done the wrong way?

Exactly. The revision itself is legitimate. But the way it’s being done — compressed timelines, flawed methods — makes it deeply problematic.

Some say this is like note bandi, but for votes. Is this a new method to steal elections?

It’s not impossible. The flaws, the speed, the confusion — it’s unprecedented. There’s reason to be concerned about disenfranchisement.

What is your core legal argument?

The EC can revise rolls but can’t change voter eligibility criteria or presume all post-2003 voters are suspect. That’s illegal. This must be stopped not just in Bihar, but for all future exercises across India.