The EC's controversial voter list revision in Bihar raises concerns about potential citizen ‘disenfranchisement.’ With accusations of ‘unconstitutionality’ and risks of creating 'second-class citizens,' ADR's Jagdeep Chhokar warns of dire implications if the move is not stopped.·
The Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar has triggered a political storm, with the opposition Congress dubbing it ‘a rigging attempt’ orchestrated by the poll panel under instructions from the ruling regime.
At least half a dozen petitions by political parties, individuals and civil society groups have been filed in the Supreme Court against what they call a ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ exercise.
The Supreme Court will take up these petitions on July 10.
With claims of potential ‘disenfranchisement’ and the risk of creating ‘second-class citizens,’ the Election Commission's move has now snowballed into a major flashpoint ahead of the Bihar elections and chances of it being replicated in other states.
Rail and road traffic were disrupted in parts of Bihar on July 9 as workers of opposition parties hit the streets during the statewide bandh called by the Opposition Mahagathbandhan or Grand Alliance to protest the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.
Opposition leaders, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, RJD's Tejashwi Yadav and several others of the INDIA bloc lead a march to the Election Commission’s office in Patna as part of the protest.
In an exclusive interview with LiveMint, Jagdeep Chhokar, co-founder of the election watchdog, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners in SC against SIR, explains why the process is illegal and impractical. Edited excerpts of the interview:
Q: What prompted ADR to approach SC challenging Bihar SIR?
A: We find the way this revision is being done and the timeframe illegal and impractical. I will explain why
In its June 24, 2025 notification, the Election Commission says there is a presumption of citizenship for people whose names are in the electoral rolls before January 1, 2003. This means there is no presumption of citizenship for people added to the rolls after January 1, 2003. This also means people added to the voter list from January 1, 2003, to June 23, 2025, have effectively been deleted from the electoral rolls.
But there are laws for the deletion of names from the voters' list. It is mentioned in the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960 and the Representation of the Act, 1951. In both cases, it’s written that if people are enrolled in a voter list and the election commission intends to delete their names, it has to send a notice to the person or persons. In fact, if the person is not at home, the poll panel has to paste a notice outside his/her home.
The poll panel is supposed to find reasons why his or her name should not be deleted, so there is a provision for giving a personal hearing.
Q: Why is it problematic?
A: People who were added to the rolls after January 1, 2003, have been deleted from the rolls without following due process, as mentioned in the law. Since these laws exist, this is problematic and illegal.
The election commission is empowered to conduct a summary or intensive revision of electoral rolls whenever it wants for reasons to be recorded. The EC has cited rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths, and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants as reasons that have necessitated the intensive revision.
But these reasons have been there for 20-25 years. These reasons being cited right now are not justified. The issue of voter eligibility is another problem in the entire process.
Q: What is the issue with Voter eligibility?
A: Voter eligibility comes from Form VI, which has a declaration certifying that the person is a citizen of India with details. The person gives a certificate as proof of his date of birth, be it Aadhaar or any other document. But the notification issued on June 24 talks about a new declaration. It asks one category of citizens to submit proof of date of birth and place of birth. For another category, it asks for proof of date of birth/place of birth of self and one of the parents. For another category, proof of date of birth and place of birth for both parents is required.
So this is a change in the criteria for eligibility of a voter. This is illegal when done by the Election Commission. This can be done by the Home Ministry, but not by the Election Commission.
Q: ADR also calls the exercise impractical. Why?
A: The Election Commission started the exercise on June 25 and will complete it in about a month. A BLO goes to a voter’s house and gives the enumeration form. The next time, he goes and collects the form. Each BLO has to go to a voter's house at least twice. Is it possible to complete the exercise in one month?
First, it is not possible that BLO will find everyone at home. Other issue which raises practicality questions is that 30-40 per cent people from Bihar migrate to other states. They won't be at home. The EC says that these people can download the form from the website, fill it and upload. Now, imagine how a labourer from Bihar working in farms in Punjab and construction sites in Worli, Mumbai, can download and upload this form.
Then the EC has listed 11 documents as proof. The requirement is to prove the date of birth and place of birth. A high school certificate is one of the documents. I have not so far seen a high school certificate which mentions myplace of birth. Only passport and birth certificates have place of birth. Only 2 per cent people of Bihar have passports.
A school leaving certificate is also a requirement. How many people in Bihar pass high school? Because of these reasons, this is impractical.
Q: But Bihar CEO has issued a clarification on the documents?
A: Yes, after people started asking these practical questions, Bihar CEO issued an advertisement in newspapers. The ad said you need not give documents and Aadhaar would do.
21.46% Enumeration Forms Collected
There is a lot of confusion. Here is why. On July 6, the Election Commission issued a press note saying ‘initial phase of Bihar SIR completed.’ It also said “1.69 Crore (21.46 per cent) Enumeration Forms Collected 7.25 per cent uploaded on ECINET
We have been asking how the 7.25 per cent of forms can be uploaded in such a short time. The press note also says, “The electors can submit their documents any time before July 25, 2025.”
This statement contradicts what the Bihar CEO says about ‘Aadhaar will do’, and that no other documents are required.
The press note also says that “After publication of draft Electoral Rolls, if any document is deficient, EROs can obtain such documents, from the electors whose name appears in the draft Electoral Rolls, during scrutiny in the Claims and Objection period.”
It clearly shows that documents are required but they can be given later. Whether the last date is July 25 or the end of the ‘complaint and objections’ is not clear.
Q: Why do you think SIR is being done?
A: I would not know. To my understanding, this should not been done in the way it is being done. But if this is being done and in the way it is being done, more than half of the people of Bihar would be disenfranchised. The EC says in its notice that it will be done in other states too.
Q: But EC is empowered to do intensive revision of electoral rolls?
A: Barring the citizenship question, yes, the EC can do the revision exercise. But the way it is being done is problematic. Had they done this a year ago, it would have been okay. The EC can do it legally, but that doesn’t mean you violate existing laws. There are Supreme Court judgements, too.
In the Lal Babu Hussein vS Electoral Registration Officer (1995), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and issued comprehensive directions to the Election Commission.
The court mandated that any action to delete a voter's name must be preceded by adequate evidence and must provide the affected individuals with a fair opportunity to present their case. The Court underscored the importance of natural justice, ensuring that the process is not only procedurally sound but also substantively fair.
More than half of the people of Bihar would be disenfranchised.
Q: What has ADR petition prayed?
A: We want it to be stopped completely, and if not now, at least order a stay and discuss it before taking it up again. If it is not stopped now, it will disrupt the electoral process and disenfranchise people. We know that if someone is not proven to be a citizen, he can also be deported. This is very dangerous.