ECI’s Bihar Poll Revision: An Acid Test

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar in 2025 has created serious constitutional, legal, and political concerns. Ostensibly aimed at purifying the electoral rolls, the process—timed months before a crucial state election—is being widely critiqued as a bureaucratic manoeuvre that could disenfranchise the poor, migrant labourers, and marginalised communities. India’s democracy is structurally hostage to electoral strategies rather than genuinely reflective of people’s choices, and in recent years, the ECI has become an additional tool in the hands of the government to perpetuate its rule.

The Constitutional Stakes

The SIR of the electoral rolls currently underway in Bihar exemplifies a perilous drift in Indian electoral politics—from the ideal of universal inclusion to a regime of selective exclusion. Though constitutionally authorised, the manner in which this revision is being executed raises urgent concerns over bureaucratic overreach, political motivation, and the creeping capture of neutral institutions. At stake is not merely the outcome of one state election but the very democratic compact on which the Indian republic is founded. A state that enshrines equality in its constitutional ethos cannot afford electoral procedures that deepen or reproduce inequality. As the Supreme Court begins to scrutinise the conduct of the ECI and public unease grows, the present moment calls for an urgent course correction—not merely to preserve procedural integrity, but to reaffirm the fundamental promise of Indian democracy.

On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court held a preliminary hearing on petitions challenging the legality and timing of the ECI’s SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar. While the Court did not stay the exercise, it refused to defer a review until after the publication of the draft electoral rolls, scheduled for August 1, 2025, thereby keeping open its ability to intervene should disenfranchisement occur. A more substantive hearing is scheduled for July 28. In the meantime, the legal, administrative, and political contours of the controversy continue to unfold.

Legal Background and Statutory Framework

The preparation and revision of electoral rolls are governed by Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers the ECI to carry out either regular summary revisions or intensive revisions. Regular summary revisions involve periodic updating of voter rolls based on deaths, address changes, and new registrations. Intensive revisions, on the other hand, are exceptional exercises in which the ECI sets aside the existing electoral roll and conducts a fresh, house-to-house enumeration.

The ECI’s constitutional mandate under Article 324 authorises it to supervise and control the conduct of elections. Article 326 guarantees universal adult suffrage for all citizens aged 18 or above, barring disqualifications laid down by law. While the courts have affirmed the ECI’s wide discretion under Article 324—for instance, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977)—they have also insisted on procedural safeguards, especially where voting rights are at stake. The legal regime is thus one that balances administrative autonomy with constitutional accountability.

Why This SIR Is Different?

Though intensive revisions are not unprecedented—having been conducted in earlier decades and last in Bihar in 2003—the current SIR departs from earlier practices in three crucial ways. First, it is being undertaken months before the Bihar Assembly elections, raising logistical concerns about its completion. Second, the ECI’s notification introduced a troubling distinction between voters included in the rolls during the 2003 intensive revision and those added subsequently through summary revisions. Only the latter group was initially required to fill out fresh enumeration forms and provide supporting documents, creating a two-tiered system of scrutiny. Third, the ECI’s list of acceptable documents excluded widely held identity proofs such as Aadhaar, EPIC Voter IDs, ration cards, and driving licences, while accepting documents like caste and matriculation certificates that neither establish identity conclusively nor prove citizenship.

Following legal challenges, the ECI dropped the July 26 deadline for document submission but did not clarify how it would treat forms submitted without the originally mandated documents. Moreover, it refused to categorically state whether Aadhaar, EPIC cards, or ration cards would be accepted going forward, prompting the Supreme Court to issue an order suggesting that such documents ought to be considered acceptable.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners before the Court contended that the SIR, as designed, threatened to disenfranchise large sections of the population—especially the poor, marginalised, and recent enrolees—by arbitrarily placing the burden of re-establishing voting eligibility on them. They pointed to Indrajit Barua v. ECI (1985), where the Court held that names on the electoral rolls could only be deleted after a proper hearing under the procedures laid out in the RP Act. The petitioners argued that once a person is included in the rolls, the presumption of citizenship applies, and any removal must be accompanied by evidence and procedural safeguards—not retrospective revalidation.

The ECI, by contrast, defended its move as a legal exercise to cleanse the electoral rolls and ensure only genuine citizens were registered to vote. It claimed that Aadhaar cards were inadmissible because Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act states that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship. However, as the petitioners rightly pointed out, many of the alternative documents accepted by the ECI—such as matriculation or caste certificates—are no more indicative of citizenship. Moreover, Section 23(4) of the RP Act expressly allows Aadhaar to be used for voter identification purposes, further weakening the ECI’s justification for its exclusion.

The ECI also argued that no disenfranchisement had yet occurred, and that objections could be raised during the thirty-day window after the draft electoral rolls are published on August 1. Yet, this line of argument appears disingenuous. If no one is to be excluded, what justifies the current revision? And if some are to be excluded, then the disenfranchisement is not hypothetical but impending. For those who find themselves omitted, the burden of re-inclusion within 30 days—through a process they may not fully understand or be equipped to navigate—can be practically insurmountable, especially for the socioeconomically vulnerable.

The Structural Concern

The deeper issue here is not just procedural irregularity but the structural logic underpinning the exercise. While the revision is presented as a neutral administrative exercise, its design and timing suggest otherwise. By introducing differential treatment of voters based on when they were added to the rolls, the ECI has created an arbitrary hierarchy. More importantly, the exclusion of documents like Aadhaar and EPIC—issued by the ECI itself—undermines its credibility and raises suspicions about hidden political motives, especially with the elections approaching.

Moreover, the very rationale of using the electoral rolls to verify citizenship—rather than identity and residence—moves the ECI into a domain traditionally reserved for the Ministry of Home Affairs. The legal and constitutional basis for such a shift remains shaky at best. If the purpose is to establish citizenship, then Parliament must legislate on it. The ECI, as a constitutional body with a limited administrative mandate, cannot unilaterally expand its jurisdiction under the guise of electoral management.

The Supreme Court’s Response So Far

The Supreme Court’s interim order navigates a careful middle path. It did not stay the revision exercise—perhaps wary of overstepping into electoral timetables—but it refused the ECI’s plea to delay a review until the draft rolls are out. This preserves the Court’s power to intervene before irreversible harm is done. While its order suggesting the acceptance of Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards is not binding, it signals judicial discomfort with the ECI’s logic and opens the door to a form of dialogic review.

The Court’s position can be viewed in two ways. On the one hand, it could be criticised for not giving a firm direction to accept commonly held documents, particularly Aadhaar, which has explicit statutory backing under Section 23(4) of the RP Act. On the other hand, the Court may be deliberately leaving room for institutional self-correction, allowing the ECI to adjust its policy without the coercive force of a judicial mandate. The wisdom of this approach will become clearer in hindsight—depending on what the ECI does next.

Why this Moment Matters

The stakes of this revision extend far beyond Bihar. If allowed to proceed unchecked, the logic of the SIR could set a dangerous precedent for future elections—justifying wide-scale purges of voter rolls on flimsy documentary grounds and creating opportunities for political manipulation through bureaucratic discretion. The spectre of disenfranchisement—particularly of already marginalised groups—undermines not just procedural integrity but substantive equality.

The revision also comes in the context of growing concerns over the independence of constitutional bodies. In recent years, the ECI has faced criticism for its handling of model code violations, scheduling decisions, and selective inaction. The SIR episode risks further erosion of public trust in an institution that is central to electoral democracy. The lack of public communication and the ECI’s high-handed, adversarial stance towards political parties reflect a troubling decay within one of the country’s most important constitutional bodies.

Finally, the use of citizenship as a filtering criterion—especially when implemented through opaque and inconsistent standards—resonates uneasily with other recent exercises like the National Registry of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. It suggests a broader policy trajectory where documents become the gatekeepers of rights, and the state’s default posture is one of suspicion rather than inclusion.

A Test For The Republic

The SIR in Bihar is not merely a matter of electoral housekeeping; it is a test case for the constitutional soul of the republic. The exercise, as currently framed, threatens to subordinate the right to vote—a fundamental component of citizenship—to bureaucratic fiat and procedural formalism. It is emblematic of a deeper shift in the state’s relationship with its citizens: from facilitator to gatekeeper, from protector of rights to examiner of entitlements.

As the Supreme Court prepares for a more substantive hearing on July 28, it faces not just a legal question but a constitutional challenge. Will it intervene forcefully to protect the right to vote, or will it allow procedural deferrals and institutional deference to obscure the underlying harm? Much will also depend on how the ECI responds—whether it retreats from its rigid stance or doubles down in the name of administrative integrity.

The democratic promise of India does not lie in the mere ritual of elections but in the inclusiveness of the franchise. A republic that aspires to equality cannot endorse electoral processes that arbitrarily exclude. This is not just a matter of the electoral rolls in Bihar—it is a reckoning with the constitutional character of the Indian state.

(Views expressed are personal)

Anand Teltumbde is an Indian scholar, writer and human rights activist

In Jungle Raj, Outlook’s August 1 issue, we explored why the Bihar elections matter so much. Our reporters delved into the state’s caste equations, governance records, electoral controversies and national ambitions, along with taking a hard look at the law and order situation— all of which make the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections one of the most consequential state polls of this electoral cycle.