The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has sparked significant controversy, leading to several direct challenges in the Supreme Court. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), RJD MP Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and Social Activist Yogendra Yadav among several others have filed petitions before the apex court, seeking a stay on the ongoing SIR process, which commenced on June 25, 2025, following the ECI’s notification [ECI/PN/233/2025] dated June 24, 2025 and the striking down of the notification. Hearings are on these petitions are scheduled before a vacation bench tomorrow, June 10. All the petitions challenging the SIR will be heard jointly by the Supreme Court, with the matter listed before a division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi.
The petitioners contend that the ECI’s decision to conduct the SIR is arbitrary, lacks proper justification, and infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. A key aspect the Court will examine is whether the SIR process violates principles of due process and natural justice, particularly concerning potential voter deletions. Furthermore, the petitioners have questioned the practicality and reasonableness of the timeline set for the SIR.
This issue is not merely a legal one; it has become a focal point of concern among opposition political parties and civil rights activists. The timing of the SIR, just months before the Bihar Assembly Elections, has raised questions. In January 2025, the final electoral rolls for the state Vidhan Sabha (VS) elections had been finalised. The SIR has, moreover been analysed by many including Sabrangindia to be a sinister move since the constitutional body appears to be “Usurping the powers to test ‘Indian citizenship’, powers that do not lie with the ECI, the latest move by CEC Gyanesh Kumar is not just unlawful and hasty but violative of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”
Political commentators and civil rights activists have also viewed it as a potential strategy to disenfranchise a substantial number of voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The apprehension is that if these voters cannot produce specific documents alongside the enumeration forms, they could be unjustly removed from the electoral rolls, effectively shifting the burden of inclusion onto the most vulnerable and transforming a fundamental right into a document-centric ordeal. The eleven listed documents are inaccessible to many small farmers, landless labourers, migrant worker communities and women. The documents requested for this revision are largely not proofs of Indian citizenship, and with the exception of a birth certificate, none verify the date or place of birth in India.
The ECI move –politically guided and driven –appears clearly to be motivated by a clear desire to disenfranchise the unlettered voter who “owns no property.” Worse, after the “announcement” to the effect that “all electors must submit an enumeration form, and those registered after 2003 have to additionally provide documentation establishing their citizenship violates not just the Constitution but Clause 15 and 19 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950!
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar
On June 24, 2025, the ECI formally announced the initiation of a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across all assembly constituencies in Bihar. The ECI has framed this intensified exercise as crucial for maintaining the integrity of the democratic process and ensuring free and fair elections. While the Commission has stated its intent to eventually roll out SIR nationwide as a constitutional mandate, Bihar has been prioritised due to the upcoming legislative assembly elections later in 2025. The SIR for other states is expected to be announced subsequently.
The ECI has cited a combination of demographic and administrative factors to justify this comprehensive revision. These include rapid urbanisation, frequent migration patterns, the continuous addition of newly eligible young voters, the underreporting of deaths, and, significantly, the need to address the potential inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants on voter lists. The explicitly stated objectives of the SIR are threefold: to ensure every eligible citizen is enrolled without exclusion, to purge the rolls of any ineligible voters, and to systematically remove names of individuals who are deceased, have permanently shifted their residence, or are otherwise absent.
Implementation and initial stringent documentary requirements
To implement this revision, the ECI established a clear procedural framework. The electoral roll from 2003, with a qualifying date of January 1, 2003, was designated as the foundational or “probative” evidence of eligibility. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were directed to presume the citizenship of individuals on this roll unless contradictory information emerged. However, the SIR introduced new and notably stringent requirements for those not listed on the 2003 roll or for younger voters. Opposition parties have demanded that the Electoral Rolls used for the Lok Sabha polls of 2024 should be the base rolls used for the revision.
Initially, any person whose name did not appear on the 2003 Electoral Roll was required to submit proof of eligibility from a prescribed list of government-issued documents. The process was even more rigorous for citizens born after 1987. For instance, an individual born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, had to furnish an approved document for themselves and a separate document for either their father or mother to establish their date and/or place of birth. For anyone born after December 2, 2004, the requirement was stricter still: they had to provide their own documentation in addition to documents for both their father and mother. If one parent was not an Indian citizen, a copy of their passport and visa from the time of the elector’s birth was to be submitted.
Crucially, the Aadhaar card, Ration Card and the Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) were conspicuously absent from the list of eleven acceptable proofs. The validated documents included passports, birth certificates, matriculation certificates, permanent residence certificates, SC/ST/OBC certificates, and various other official documents issued by government authorities, banks, or PSUs prior to July 1, 1987, such as identity cards, pension orders, land allotment certificates, or entries in the National Register of Citizens (though not applicable to Bihar).
This initial stringent requirement raised concerns about potential discrimination. While individuals in certain societal positions (e.g., government servants, landholders) might more easily produce documents, others, particularly those born in the 1970s and 1980s for whom birth certificates are often scarce, were left heavily reliant on this single, often unavailable, document.
Furthermore, the provision exempting those on the 2003 voter list from producing documents was criticised as discriminatory, as it bypassed the very verification process being applied to others.
Backtracking from initial stringent conditions: ECI drops parental birth document requirement
Responding to the formidable backlash that ensued, the ECI announced substantial relaxations to its controversial SIR requirements in Bihar on June 30, 2025. This effectively reversed its initial stringent demand for parental birth documents. The backtrack came in direct response to intense criticism from opposition parties and civil society, who had vehemently protested the original June 24 directive as an impractical disenfranchisement risk and a covert attempt to introduce a National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Under the revised guidelines, the ECI now leverages the 2003 Bihar electoral roll, which contains 4.96 crore electors, as a primary verification tool. Individuals born after 1987 are no longer required to provide their parents’ birth documentation if either their own name or their parents’ names appear on this 2003 list. This change is projected to streamline the process for approximately 60% of the state’s electorate, who can now simply verify their details against the 2003 data and submit an enumeration form. Even if an elector’s name is absent from the 2003 roll, they can use an extract from it to substantiate their parents’ details without needing further corroborating documents, although they must still provide their own proof of eligibility.
This move, a clear afterthought is however likely to adversely impact vast sections of Bihar’s youth that reel under an absence of access and documentation.
While rolling back the contentious measures, the ECI defended the underlying principle of the SIR, framing it as a fundamental statutory exercise mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and a routine part of maintaining accurate electoral rolls for over 75 years. To facilitate this revised process, the Commission has directed that the 2003 rolls be made widely available to Booth Level Officers in hard copy and accessible to the public for download on its website.
Bihar: the most document scarce state in the country
Reliable studies consistently show Bihar to be among the most “document scarce” states in India, a critical factor that amplifies the challenges of the ECI’s voter verification drive and its “proof of citizenship” demands. An analysis of the 11 documents initially suggested as proof reveals significant limitations in their widespread availability.
For instance, identity or pension cards from government undertakings or PSUs are an option, yet data from the 2022 caste census indicate that less than 2% of voting-age Biharis hold government jobs, rendering this proof largely inaccessible for the majority. Birth certificates are another problematic requirement; the National Family Health Survey-3 (NFHS-3) shows only 2.8% of Bihar’s population born between 2001 and 2005 possess them, with the percentage likely even lower for older generations. Similarly, only about 2.4% of Biharis possess passports.
Latest 2022 statistics by the Civil Registration System (CRS) 2022[1] show that Bihar is among 14 states like Tripura, Assam, Telangana, West Bengal, Kerala, Jharkhand, Ladakh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir that are in the “the category of more than 50 percent to less than of registration of births” (Statement 12, page 38 of the documenyt) This government document shows that Bihar has 61.2 % (Registered Births in Rural Bihar, 2022) 38.8 % (Registered Birth in Urban Bihar) (Statement 18, Page 47).
While matriculation certificates are more common, with the National Family Health Survey-2 (NFHS-2) and NFHS-5 revealing that approximately 45-50% of 18–40-year-olds are matriculates, a substantial gender gap persists. Forest rights certificates, while an option, are relevant to a minuscule segment of the population, given that Scheduled Tribes constitute just 1.3% of Bihar’s populace, and only a fraction of those actually reside in forest areas. Caste certificates (OBC, SC, or ST), according to the India Human Development Survey-2 (2011-12), were possessed by about 16% of Biharis, roughly one in four households in these categories; upper castes, by definition, would not hold such certificates. Furthermore, the presence in an NRC or family register, both listed as proofs, is not applicable to Bihar. Lastly, government-issued land/house allotment certificates are suggested, but these are not provided for beneficiaries of schemes like the PM Awas Yojana, leaving ambiguity about who receives such documents and their overall coverage. These data, highlighted in The Hindu on July 1, 2025.
The emerging concern: from voter to doubtful/disputed voter – a looming fear
A series of electoral and administrative procedures creates a perilous journey for individuals whose citizenship comes under scrutiny—an exercise that has to be performed under due process by the state and not the ECI–potentially transforming a routine voter verification into a path towards disenfranchisement and the daunting status of a “suspected foreigner.” This process, ostensibly aimed at ensuring the integrity of electoral rolls, is fraught with measures that can lead to severe and life-altering consequences for those unable to meet documentation requirements. The situation unfolds in a connected sequence of events, each escalating the potential for an individual to lose their right to vote and, ultimately, their claim to citizenship.
The initial point of concern arises from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. While being on the electoral roll is not a definitive guarantee of citizenship, the SIR process itself subjects existing electors to rigorous scrutiny. The true fear for individuals begins with a specific guideline within the Election Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025. Para 5(b) of these guidelines empowers Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) with a critical and twofold authority: if an elector fails to produce documents that satisfy the ERO, the officer can not only delete their name from the voter list but is also mandated to report that individual to the “competent authority” as a “suspected foreigner.” This single provision creates a high-stakes scenario where the inability to provide the required, and often ambiguously defined, documentation can instantly escalate a person’s status from a voter to a suspected foreigner, a direction criticised as draconian and arbitrary.
Once a person is flagged as having “doubtful/disputed” citizenship, a significant and immediate consequence is the suspension of their voting rights. The process dictates that individuals whose names are entered provisionally in the electoral rolls, marked with the letter ‘D’ to signify their doubtful status, are debarred from casting their vote. This prohibition is not temporary; it may extend to all future general elections to the Lok Sabha and any State Legislative Assembly elections. The individual remains in this state of civic limbo, stripped of a fundamental right while their case navigates a complex legal system.
The question that is being raised is, is the citizenship of thousands of Indians being tested in this rather surreptitious way?
Post-SIR: what can be next for voters who become doubtful/disputed voters?
The pattern that seems to be emerging from the politically-directed ECI’s move is that the union government wishes to use elections to introduce an Assam-like situation in the state without any legislative backing. Due to the peculiar situation in that state post-Independence and that which emerged before and after the Assam Accord, two laws, the Foreigners Act of 1946 (now repealed by the Foreigners Act 2025) and the now repealed Illegal Migration Determination of Tribunals Act, 1983. In Assam, following an ECI Order of 1998 and directions before that hundreds of thousands of voters were declared ‘D’ Voters (doubtful voters) with their status to be adjudicated by Foreigner Tribunals (FTs) in the state. Twenty seven years later there remain approximately 1.2 lakh such disenfranchised citizens who have not been able to cast their vote. In Assam, laws mandated the formation of the FTs that have been since strongly critiqued for not functioning with a clear constitutional framework that follows the Indian law of evidence; in Bihar and the rest of India where the ECI has threatened to bring in the expanded SIR, there exists no law that mandates the formation of such Tribunals.
Under the prevalent practice in Assam –the ultimate decision concerning the “doubtful/disputed” persons in electoral roll lies with the Election Commission of India (ECI). When the commission is not satisfied and has reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, it can refer all such cases to the competent authority, which has been mandated to be the tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
A person whose citizenship status is in question and under consideration before a Foreigners Tribunal is not eligible to vote unless the Tribunal decides in their favour that they are a citizen of India. As mentioned above, if this adjudication process is mired in bureaucratic delay, the constitutional right to vote is denied. This is because individuals whose citizenship status is doubtful or disputed, as indicated by a ‘D’ against their names in the electoral rolls, shall be barred from casting their vote in any ensuing general election. This restriction will persist until an appropriate Tribunal determines their citizenship status in their favour. The looming threat of an adverse tribunal decision, leading to an official declaration as a foreigner, brings with it the profound fear of potential detention and the complete forfeiture of all rights and the sense of belonging in their country. To repeat there exists no legislative framework for this exercise and the manner in which it is being conducted under executive diktat presently.
The constitutional and statutory bedrock
The entire electoral revision process is firmly anchored in India’s constitutional and legal framework governing elections. The foundational provisions for these regulations are Articles 326 and 327 of the Constitution. Article 326 establishes the principle of adult suffrage, stating that elections shall be held on the basis that every citizen of India, aged at least eighteen, is entitled to be registered as a voter, provided they are not otherwise disqualified by law. This article makes Indian citizenship a non-negotiable prerequisite for voting rights. Article 327 further empowers Parliament to enact laws concerning all election-related matters, including the preparation of electoral rolls. However, this power is explicitly “subject to the provisions of the Constitution,” meaning any law passed by Parliament must align with the principles outlined in Article 326.
Acting under this constitutional authority, Parliament enacted the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950 (for registration) and the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (for the conduct of elections). Section 16 of the 1950 Act details the “disqualifications for registration,” prominently stating that a person who is not a citizen of India is disqualified. In conjunction, Section 62 of the 1951 Act outlines the “right to vote.” While sub-section (1) of Section 62 entitles a person entered on the electoral roll to vote, sub-section (2) acts as a crucial check, stating that no person shall vote if they are subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the 1950 Act. This unequivocally clarifies that even if a non-citizen’s name is erroneously present on a voter list, they possess no legal right to cast a ballot. The inquiry into these qualifications is conducted during the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, and if a person is found disqualified, their name can be struck off, and they are barred from voting.
ECI deploys BLOs for house-to-house voter verification
In Bihar, the ECI has deployed thousands of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to conduct a comprehensive house-to-house voter verification drive. As per instructions, BLOs will conduct door-to-door surveys, distributing and collecting pre-filled enumeration forms along with supporting documents from existing electors. These forms are also downloadable from the ECI website or can be filled and uploaded online. For transparency and privacy, verification documents will be uploaded to ECINET, a secure platform accessible only to authorised election officials.
The ECI has also urged active participation from political parties, requesting them to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to help resolve discrepancies early in the process. Claims and objections raised by electors or political parties will be assessed by Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs). The final electoral roll will be published by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) after all claims and objections have been resolved. These draft final rolls are slated for publication on August 1, 2025, and will be made publicly accessible on the ECI and Chief Electoral Officer websites, in addition to being shared with recognised political parties.
Plenary powers of the Election Commission
Article 324 of the Constitution serves as a foundational provision, entrusting the ECI with comprehensive responsibility for conducting both national and state elections. This includes the essential powers required to fulfill that duty effectively. Specifically, Article 324 grants the ECI plenary powers of superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections for Parliament and every State Legislature. These powers are particularly crucial in areas where specific legislation is absent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act, 1950), explicitly acknowledge the Commission’s authority to issue general or special directions concerning the preparation and correction of electoral rolls.
It’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Comr. (1978) 1 SCC 405, clarified the limits of this broad authority. The Court ruled that while the ECI can issue instructions and orders in areas not covered by legislation, this power must not be exercised in a malicious, arbitrary, or biased manner, nor without due consideration.
SIR Status till July 8
As of June 24, 2025, Bihar’s electoral roll comprised approximately 7.90 crore electors (7,89,69,844). The ECI has reported significant progress in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. By July 5, 2025, at 6:00 PM, 1.04 crore Enumeration Forms (13.19% of total electors) had been submitted, with 93.57% of forms distributed. This momentum continued, with 1.69 crore forms (21.46%) received by July 6, 2025, 6:00 PM, including 65.33 lakh collected in the preceding 24 hours. As of July 7, 2025, 6:00 PM, submissions surged to 2.88 crore forms (36.47% of total electors), with 1.18 crore collected in the last 24 hours. The ECI anticipates completing the collection of Enumeration Forms well before the July 25, 2025 deadline, having already received 3.71 crore forms (46.95% of total electors) by 6:00 PM on July 8, just 14 days after the SIR instructions were issued.
It is likely, if the Supreme Court understands the wider and problematic implications of the present exercise, that the petitions will be extensively heard and argued. The people of India will await with concern their outcome.
Related
[1] VITAL STATISTICS OF INDIA BASED ON THE CIVIL REGISTRATION SYSTEM 2022 brought out by the OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS VITAL STATISTICS DIVISION CIVIL REGISTRATION SYSTEM SECTION