The “Special Intensive Revision (SIR)” controversy surrounding Bihar’s electoral rolls has prompted an extraordinary and deeply personal appeal to the Supreme Court of India. At the heart of it lies Dr. Pyara Lal Garg’s serious allegations against the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the manner in which they are conducting this special revision.
On July 24, the distinguished election expert and former Dean from Panjab University, the 77-year-old Dr. Garg has written directly to the Chief Justice of India, not as a legal professional, but as a concerned citizen grappling with profound anguish over the future of Indian democracy.
His carefully crafted letter lays bare his concerns, arguing that for him, this isn’t merely about administrative protocols. Instead, it represents a critical fight to safeguard the fundamental right to vote, a right he believes is being systematically eroded, particularly for the poor and marginalised.
His application, a potent indictment of the ECI’s actions, reveals a series of glaring inconsistencies and alleged breaches of electoral laws, all in an effort to avert what he perceives as the potential disenfranchisement of millions and a severe blow to the nation’s democratic ideals.
The contradiction at the heart of the matter: ECI’s shifting stance
Dr. Garg’s letter began by exposing a troubling inconsistency in the ECI’s directives. He pointed out that on May 1, 2025, the ECI had issued instructions acknowledging its responsibility, under Rule 9 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to electronically obtain and verify death registration data from the Registrar General of India. This indicated a clear understanding that the onus of verification lay with the Commission itself. However, less than two months later, on June 24, 2025, the ECI issued a subsequent order for the “Special Intensive Revision” in Bihar.
This new directive, Dr. Garg argued, completely contradicted their earlier stand. Instead of the ECI verifying data, the burden of proving eligibility, even for already registered voters, was now inexplicably shifted onto the electors themselves. This sudden and significant change, he contended, was not only arbitrary but also a clear violation of the ECI’s own admitted duties and established legal procedures.
Alleged violations of core electoral Laws: unlawful demands and procedures
Dr. Garg’s letter meticulously detailed how the ECI’s “Special Intensive Revision” appeared to violate fundamental provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA, 1950), and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He specifically highlighted that the core of the ECI’s alleged overreach, according to Dr. Garg, lay in its arbitrary creation and use of an “Enumeration Form,” a proforma entirely different from the legally prescribed Form 4 under Rule 8 of the 1960 Rules.
This new form not only varied in format but also in content, introducing an unauthorised demand for 11 specific documents to prove identity and citizenship.
Dr. Garg argued that this was a direct contravention of Section 23(4), (5), and (6) of the RPA, 1950, which stipulates that while Aadhaar may be sought for identity, it cannot be a mandatory requirement for inclusion or deletion of names, and alternative documents should be allowed. The ECI’s unilateral demand for such an extensive list of documents, without any legal amendment, rendered the entire exercise invalid.
Disregard for established legal framework
Dr. Garg mentioned that the ECI is mandated to carry out electoral roll preparation and revision in a “prescribed manner” and “in accordance with the provisions of Rules made” under the RPA, 1950, as stated in Section 21. He stressed that Section 19 clearly lays down the conditions for registration – being 18 years of age and ordinarily resident in a constituency.
Furthermore, he cited Section 20(1A), which clarifies that temporary absence from residence doesn’t cease one’s ordinary residency. The ECI’s current revision, by demanding extensive documentation and shifting verification burden, appeared to flout these foundational principles.
The citizenship conundrum: a question of authority
Perhaps one of the most contentious points raised was the ECI’s perceived attempt to delve into matters of citizenship, an authority, Dr. Garg argued, that lies beyond its purview. The ECI’s instruction requiring proof of birth and parental origin based on specific dates (before July 1, 1987; between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004; and after December 2, 2004) aligned suspiciously with the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended.
This, Dr. Garg contended, implied that the ECI was attempting to implement aspects of the CAA-NRC, a function that rightfully belongs to Parliament and other competent authorities, not the Election Commission. He posed the critical question:
“Has the Election Commission been appointed to define and judge the citizenship rights?”
Invalidating past elections and creating constitutional crisis
Dr. Garg forcefully argued that by referring to January 1, 2003, as a qualifying date for the current revision – essentially reviewing electoral rolls from 23 years prior – the ECI was acting outside its constitutional mandate. Articles 324, 326, and 328 of the Constitution authorise revisions based on the immediate previous list, not decades-old records. If the ECI’s actions were upheld, he argued, it would implicitly question the validity of all central and state legislatures, presidential, and vice-presidential appointments, and all laws and decisions made since 2003. This, he warned, would plunge the nation into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Ground realities: the unseen victims of bureaucracy
Beyond the legal intricacies, Dr. Garg passionately highlighted the real “ground realities” that would inevitably victimise millions of genuine voters.
The demand for birth certificates, especially for those born before 1987, was deemed “impracticable and totally unlawful.” He noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act only came into existence in 1969, meaning records for earlier births would simply not exist for a vast majority.
He presented data showing abysmally low birth registration rates in Bihar (6.3% in 2005-06) and a national average of only 41.4%, with birth certificates found in just 27.1% of cases.
“How could individuals born decades ago produce documents that never existed or were rarely issued?”
The Digital Divide and Illiteracy Barrier
Dr. Garg emphasised India’s significant literacy gap, especially in states like Bihar, where female literacy was as low as 22.89% in 2001. Demanding matriculation certificates or passports from a population where only 10.55% were matriculates or above in 2001, and only 6.5% possessed a valid passport as of 2023, was a recipe for widespread exclusion. Many remote and impoverished citizens lack access to digital records or the means to obtain such documents.
The threat of doubtful voters and loss of rights
The direst consequence, as articulated by Dr. Garg, was the potential for millions to lose their citizenship and become stateless based on arbitrary deletions from the electoral rolls. Such an outcome would strip them of ration and other essential benefits, and even fundamental rights. He warned of “demographic changes for political aims” and the alarming possibility of “around 25,000 votes per constituency… stolen” through dubious deletions.
ECI’s procedural failures and discrepancies
Dr. Garg’s letter also pointed to glaring operational failures and inconsistencies within the ECI’s execution of the revision. He highlighted:
- Failure to adhere to forms and rules: The ECI had allegedly bypassed legally prescribed forms (Forms 6, 7, 8, etc.) and rules (Rules 13, 15, 16, 19, 26 of the 1960 Rules) for inclusion, objection, and correction of names.
- Printing and distribution shortfalls: The ECI’s own press releases indicated a massive shortfall in printing voter forms – only 79 million out of a required 158 million by July 10, 2025. Furthermore, there was a reported lack of double-form distribution and receipts for electors, both mandatory.
- Dubious data and forged signatures: Dr. Garg alleged instances of forged signatures, forms uploaded without field visits, and a “double-edged sword” warning system that pushed electors to submit documents even if their forms were uploaded without them.
- Mathematical inconsistencies: He even cited discrepancies in the ECI’s own reported figures, where totals in press releases didn’t add up, indicating a “glaring picture of casualness even at the top.”
- Unverified deletions: The ECI claimed that over 4.1 million electors were “not found at their place” and 3.4 million were “deceased or permanently shifted” without conclusive verification. Dr. Garg argued these were “doubtful removals” designed for “horse trading.”
Dr. Pyara Lal Garg concluded his powerful application with a heartfelt prayer to the Supreme Court. He sought answers to critical questions of law that pierced to the very heart of India’s democratic framework:
- Is this revision a flagrant breach of election law?
- Is it a nefarious design to undermine universal franchise?
- Does it violate fundamental provisions of the RPA, 1950, particularly against the poor and marginalised?
- Does the ECI possess the authority to implement the CAA-NRC or define citizenship rights?
- Will this revision retroactively invalidate past elections and legislative bodies?
- Is the ECI, by abandoning the principle of inclusion, trampling the concept of universal adult suffrage, a cornerstone debated and enshrined by the Constituent Assembly?
Related
Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions