Introduction
In 2025, Bihar became the centre of a major electoral initiative known as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. Announced on June 24 by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the exercise aimed to update a list that had not been comprehensively revised since 2003.
With assembly elections scheduled later this year, the ECI decided to conduct door-to-door enumeration to:
- Remove errors
- Delete ineligible names
- Add eligible but missing voters
The goal was to restore accuracy to an electoral roll affected by population shifts, migration, and outdated data.
The Legal Challenge Emerges
Soon after, a coalition of civil society groups and leaders—including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Yogendra Yadav, Manoj Jha, Mahua Moitra, and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)—moved the Supreme Court under Article 32.
They argued that the SIR process was exclusionary. By requiring one of eleven specific documents and setting tight deadlines, it risked disenfranchising millions—particularly:
- Migrants
- Women
- Daily-wage workers
- Those lacking formal papers
The petitioners pointed out that:
- Documents such as passports or residence certificates are rare in Bihar.
- Aadhaar, ration cards, or voter IDs—widely held—were excluded as primary proofs of citizenship.
- The additional requirement of showing parental documents for those born after January 1, 2003, created difficulties for young first-time voters.
Supreme Court’s Initial Stand
On July 10, the Supreme Court refused to stay the SIR, reasoning that halting the process could disrupt preparations for the upcoming elections.
However, the Court urged the ECI to adopt a more flexible approach and consider expanding the list of documents.
By mid-August, the Court examined the revised framework, which had expanded the document list from seven in earlier revisions to eleven under the SIR.
- The bench observed that requiring just one of a larger pool could be more inclusive than before.
- Still, petitioners emphasized that many of these documents were practically unavailable to large sections of Bihar’s population.
Transparency and Right to Appeal
On August 14, the Supreme Court delivered a significant directive:
- It ordered the ECI to publish the names and reasons for deletion of nearly 65 lakh voters from the draft rolls.
- Dissemination had to be through:
- District websites
- Booth-level offices
- Local newspapers
- Television, radio, and social media
This allowed affected individuals to know and contest their removal.
The Court also allowed Aadhaar to be used for filing claims against exclusion, even though it is not proof of citizenship under the Aadhaar Act.
This was a pragmatic step—acknowledging that Aadhaar remains the most widely available identity proof in rural India.
Accessibility of the Process
On August 22, the Court went further:
- Objections and claims could be filed both online and physically.
- Claims could be supported by Aadhaar or any of the eleven documents.
- Political parties were instructed to deploy booth-level agents (BLAs) to help voters file claims.
This acknowledged that voter protection requires outreach, not just legal rules.
Deadline and Corrections
- The formal deadline for filing claims and objections was September 1.
- Petitioners sought an extension, but the Court declined.
Instead, it accepted the ECI’s assurance that corrections and inclusions would remain possible until the end of the nomination process for the Bihar Assembly elections.
In practice, this meant voters would not be denied recourse even after the official cutoff.
Political and Public Response
- Opposition leaders welcomed the Court’s orders as a safeguard against mass disenfranchisement.
- Congress declared that the ruling had “exposed and discredited” the ECI’s initial approach.
- Civic groups hailed it as a major victory for voter rights.
On the other hand, the ECI defended the SIR, calling it necessary to clean up electoral rolls after two decades. It acknowledged that such an ambitious exercise was “bound to have defects” but maintained that the process was fundamentally voter-friendly.
Balancing Administrative Rigor and Rights
The Bihar SIR and the Supreme Court’s interventions highlight a classic tension in Indian democracy:
How to balance administrative rigor with the constitutional right to vote.
- The ECI’s objective—to modernize and sanitize voter lists—was legitimate.
- But its initial methods risked large-scale exclusion.
The Supreme Court respected the ECI’s domain but stepped in to ensure that procedure did not overshadow substance.
By:
- Mandating transparency
- Allowing Aadhaar as supporting proof
- Insisting on accessible claims mechanisms
…the Court ensured that the SIR did not become a tool of disenfranchisement.
Its rulings underscored that the right to vote cannot be made dependent on bureaucratic technicalities alone.
Conclusion
As Bihar moves toward its 2025 Assembly elections, the credibility of the voter rolls will be central to public confidence.
The Special Intensive Revision is an ambitious step toward electoral accuracy, but it carries risks if poorly executed.
The Supreme Court’s timely orders have helped strike a balance:
- Empowering the ECI to pursue reform
- Protecting citizens from exclusion
Ultimately, the episode demonstrates that in a vibrant democracy, the integrity of elections depends not only on institutions but also on vigilance from:
- Courts
- Civil society
- Citizens themselves
For millions of Biharis, the assurance of their franchise now rests on the sensitive and inclusive implementation of these safeguards.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
