“An Election Commission bent on striking off names is bound to disenfranchise large sections of undocumented and vulnerable citizens,” he said, adding that this undermines trust in the fairness of elections.

Pointing out that the credibility of the Commission has historically been the backbone of India’s democratic resilience, he criticised the current system of appointing Election Commissioners, where the government retains decisive control, despite the Supreme Court recommending the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the process. “If the Commission is seen as partisan, the public will view elections as a fixed match,” Mr. Hegde warned.

The lecture traced the historical background to Citizenship and why the election commission’s doings first in Assam (over the exclusions in the National Register of Citizens –NRC and now the SIR) in Bihar are now spreading a fear and panic. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process since June 2025 has faced criticism politically and even in the Courts, where judicial orders have had to be resorted to, to ensure a measure of accountability and inclusion.

Journalist Dinesh Amin Mattu described the current controversies surrounding electoral processes as “symptoms” of a deeper malaise within India’s election system. Speaking on electoral accountability, he noted that while debates once centred on EVMs and now on voter rolls, the underlying problem was the lack of structural reform. “The real issue is not just in Bihar or elsewhere; it is the larger disease that has crept into the system,” Mr. Mattu said.

In the panel discussion that followed, activists and civil society representatives voiced concerns over large-scale exclusions from electoral rolls in Bihar and the continuing uncertainty around the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. Participants flagged the notification of a “special intensive revision” of voter lists in Bihar as deeply flawed, noting that it seeks to weed out “illegal immigrants” — a mandate that goes beyond the Election Commission’s role. Concerns were also raised about privileging certain groups such as bureaucrats and sportspersons while subjecting ordinary citizens, especially minorities, women, and migrant workers, to scrutiny. Teesta Setalvad, co-convenor of Vote for Democracy (VFD) led the panel discussion with participation from Tara Rao from Edelu Karnataka.

A lively discussion on what lay in store for Indian democracy followed. Opposition parties from Bihar like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Indian National Congress (INC) have over the past two and a half weeks been conducting a ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar. Meanwhile independent journalists and Digital Platforms, including You Tubers have been reporting on the ground on gross anomalies and errors in the manner in which the SIR that has –initially excluded a staggering 65 lakh persons—been conducted. The Supreme Court is currently still hearing the matter. On claims of ‘weeding out 3 lakh illegal immigrants’ and those who are ‘dead’ or ‘permanently shifted’, or have ‘duplicate voter cards’ in fact, marginalised communities –Dalits, Muslims and women from across the spectrum face the serious threat of being denied their constitutional right to Universal Adult Franchise under Article 326 of the Constitution.

Journalist Gauri Lankesh’s immediate family, Kavitha Lankesh and her neice Esha Lankesh were present on the occasion.

Related:

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

Election Commission of India says voters’ names not to be removed without prior notice

The post Election Commission seriously risks losing all credibility: senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The problem of dubious duplicates: categories of duplication

The investigation further broke down the data into more granular categories, highlighting the varying degrees of suspiciousness:

• Identical Entries: In 16,375 cases, the duplicates were “spitting replicas” of each other, with names, relatives’ names, ages, and addresses all matching exactly or being only a few kilometres apart. These are the cases that should have been the easiest for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to detect.
• Near-Perfect Matches: There were 25,862 cases where all credentials—names, relatives’ names, and ages—matched, but the addresses were different. The report suggests that these could have been easily caught by the ECI’s software designed to identify “demographically similar entries.”
• Similar Ages: The most common category of duplication involved 1.02 lakh cases where individuals were registered twice with the same name, parent’s name, and an age difference of up to 5 years. This age similarity makes it difficult for a polling officer to distinguish between the two entries, potentially allowing a person to vote twice. The investigation also found 40,781 cases with a 6–10-year age difference and 45,774 cases with a difference of over 10 years.

New Investigation: We uncovered 1.88 lakh suspicious double voter registrations across just 39 assembly constituencies in Bihar, contradicting the Election Commission of India’s claim of having eliminated duplicates. 1/5https://t.co/cI1BhTLlFK

— the reporters’ collective (@reporters_co) September 1, 2025

The findings directly contradict the ECI’s claim that it had already removed more than seven lakh duplicate voters, representing 0.89% of electors, before publishing the draft rolls. The sheer number of remaining duplicates suggests that the deduplication process was not as thorough as the ECI had stated. The report also highlights that the ECI made the draft electoral rolls non-machine-readable, complicating large-scale data analysis by external parties.

Anomalies in voter deletions

On September 1, a separate analysis by The Hindu focused on the 65 lakh voters deleted from the draft electoral roll and revealed several distinct categories of anomalies. The patterns uncovered raise concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly of women and young voters, and the accuracy of the reasons for deletion.

Suspicious deletion patterns

The analysis identified eight specific patterns that defy demographic norms:

• Young Deaths: 80 assembly parts (polling stations) showed an unusually high proportion of young deaths. In these areas, more than half of the deceased voters were under the age of 50. For example, at one polling station in Bhagalpur, 50 out of 58 total deaths were of individuals under 50.
• Gender Bias: In 127 parts, there was a high gender bias in deletions, with women making up 80% or more of all deletions. This pattern suggests the potential disenfranchisement of women voters, particularly in areas with significant minority populations.
• Abnormally High Deletion Rates: 1,985 parts had more than 200 deletions each. In one part in Gopalganj, 641 voters were deleted, with the majority marked as “shifted.”
• Excessive Deaths: 412 parts reported more than 100 deaths each, a number that is demographically improbable.
• High Death Proportions: A staggering 7,216 parts reported that over 75% of their deletions were due to deaths. In some cases, like at a polling station in Bhagalpur, 99.4% of deletions were attributed to death.
• 100% Death-Based Deletions: 973 parts reported that all deletions were solely due to death, a statistically impossible scenario.
• Mass “Absent” Classifications: 5,084 stations had more than 50 voters marked as “absent.” In one case in Gopalganj, 457 voters were classified as absent.
• Suspicious Women “Shifts”: 663 parts showed a pattern where at least 60 voters were marked as “shifted,” with women comprising 75% or more of those cases. In three parts in Gopalganj, 100% of the shifted voters were women.

The Hindu Report published on September 1, 2025

The geographic concentration of these anomalies in border districts and areas with significant minority populations is also noted. The high proportion of deleted young women voters, particularly those marked as “shifted,” raises questions about whether these are cases of marriage migration that were not properly re-registered.

The narratives and numbers

The two reports, while distinct in their focus, paint a similar picture of a flawed electoral roll revision process. They highlight a significant gap between the ECI’s stated claims of a “purified” list and the ground reality revealed by data analysis. The ECI has, in its social media statements, not denied the facts presented but has questioned the methodology, calling it “data mining” and arguing that such patterns do not conclusively prove duplication without on-the-ground verification.

However, the findings have been also endorsed by opposition political parties and activists. The Vote for Democracy expert, Dr. Pyara Lal Garg, for instance, extrapolated the findings of The Reporters’ Collective to estimate the total number of fake voters across all 243 constituencies in Bihar to be over 11.7 lakhs. Similarly, the Congress party has claimed to have submitted 89 lakh complaints of irregularities.

Another day, another “Voter Fraud”: Congress

Reacting to the Reporters’ Collective findings, Congress MP and General Secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala criticised the ECI. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), he wrote, “Another day – another ‘Voter Fraud’! Now, 1,88,000 (1.88 Lakh) ‘Dubious Double Voters’ exposed in Bihar. No day passes before ‘Vote Chori’ isn’t exposed in Bihar

Another day – another “Voter Fraud” !

Now, 1,88,000 (1.88 Lakh) “Dubious Double Voters” exposed in Bihar.

No day passes before “Vote Chori” isn’t exposed in Bihar. https://t.co/KiSk5xRjzH

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) September 1, 2025

TMC MP Sagarika Ghosh also slammed the silence of mainstream media and the inaction of the Election Commission. She posted on X that “Mainstream Godi media may blank out the Opposition’s #VoterAdhikarYatra but EVERY DAY brings out new exposes by non-legacy media of MASSIVE vote manipulation. Time for the Kumbhakarna called @ECISVEEP to wake up. Aisa ‘SIR’ nahi chalega, sirs! #SIR”

Mainstream Godi media may blank out the Opposition’s #VoterAdhikarYatra but EVERY DAY brings out new exposes by non legacy media of MASSIVE vote manipulation . Time for the Kumbhakarna called @ECISVEEP to wake up. Aisa ‘SIR’ nahi chalega, sirs! #SIR #VoteChorGaddiChhor https://t.co/DXWBDc8rhU

— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) September 1, 2025

However, the ECI has maintained that the draft roll is subject to continuous scrutiny and that individuals and political parties have the opportunity to file claims and objections. The reports highlight the difficulty in doing so, especially with the rolls being non-machine-readable. The Supreme Court has also intervened, with the ECI assuring the court that claims and objections can be filed even after the official deadline, extending the window for voters to rectify their details.

Moreover, the investigations reveal the critical need for transparency and a robust, verifiable process for electoral roll revision. While the ECI has the ultimate authority to validate these cases, the sheer volume of these dubious entries and deletions suggests that the current system has significant shortcomings that could impact the outcome of upcoming elections.

Related

In Bihar 3 lakh electors served with doubtful citizen notices by Election Commission

Bihar SIR: New elector applications doubled in just 2 days, showing a 96.6% increase

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

The post 1.88 lakh dubious double voters found in Bihar, unusual deletion patterns raise doubts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Chief Electoral Office, Bihar categorically denied receiving any formal claims or objections in the prescribed formats, the Congress asserted it has stamped receipts from District Electoral Officers as proof of submission—indicating a sharp contradiction between the two versions.

Congress filed 89 lakh complaints on Bihar SIR with the Election Commission, but all were rejected, says Pawan Khera

At a press conference in Patna on August 31, senior Congress leader and head of the party’s media and publicity department, Pawan Khera — accompanied by Bihar Congress president Rajesh Ram and senior leaders Akhilesh Prasad and Shakeel Ahmad alleged that the EC keeps getting news planted through its sources that no complaints are coming from any political party.

“The truth is that the Congress submitted 89 lakh complaints pertaining to irregularities in the SIR to the EC”, he said

Names deleted, but no process followed: Congress

Khera detailed the scale and categories of deletions:

• 25 lakh names struck off for alleged migration
• 22 lakh marked as deceased
• 9.7 lakh missing at their registered addresses
• 7 lakh names removed for being registered elsewhere

The Congress contended that while errors and migration are valid reasons for cleanup, the patterns of deletion were deeply suspicious, especially since a large proportion of women voters were removed under the migrant category—an unexpected finding given that it is mostly men who migrate for work.

All the deleted names would have to be verified again: Congress

Addressing media alongside Bihar Congress president Rajesh Ram, Khera said despite blatant resistance from the ECI to the complaints, district Congress committee presidents secured the signed and stamped receipts from the District Electoral Officers.

He said “The ECI refused to accept complaints and objections from the booth-level agents, saying the complaints should be from the individual complainants and not from political parties.”

Khera further presented statistics that, according to the Congress, highlight a possible targeted purge as;

• 20,638 booths saw over 100 deletions
• 1,988 booths had over 200 names removed
• 7,613 booths reported deletion of 70% women voters
• In 635 booths, over 75% of migrant deletions were women
• In 7,931 booths, 75% of deletions were marked as deceased

He noted that in several instances, voters who were allegedly declared dead had met Rahul Gandhi recently during his visit to Bihar.

The ECI keeps getting news planted through its sources that no complaints are coming from any political party: Congress

Khera reiterated at the briefing that “We also have their receipts, and now this fact cannot be denied. We hope that the data we have provided will be verified by the EC, and an investigation conducted into that. There is a need for door-to-door verification again to correct these mistakes.”

Duplicate voter IDs and systemic gaps

In addition to deletions, Khera flagged multiple instances where single voters had received two EPIC (Elector Photo Identity Card) numbers, suggesting possible duplication that could distort the final roll.

He also accused the EC of adopting a rigid and opaque stance by refusing to accept complaints from political entities and demanding they be submitted by individuals—a rule, he argued, that goes against the spirit of transparent and participatory democracy.

EC had a pre-determined agenda: Congress

Bihar Congress president Rajesh Ram alleged that the EC approached the exercise with a pre-conditioned mind-set, already anticipating a 20% deletion rate due to migration even before the review began.

“This suggests that the ECI was operating with a pre-conditioned mind-set. The irony lies in the fact that most of the voters whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls do not even know about it,” he said.

No valid claims or objections filed by Congress BLAs: Bihar CEO rebuts allegations

In a strongly worded rebuttal to the Congress party’s claims, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar replied that no Booth Level Agent (BLA) authorised by any District Congress Committee (DCC) president has submitted valid claims or objections regarding entries in the draft electoral rolls. Citing the absence of prescribed documentation, the CEO’s office stated that “Till date, no BLA authorised by any district president of the INC in Bihar has submitted any claim (Form 6) or objection (Form 7).”

Link: https://x.com/CEOBihar/status/1962141479318798475

Objections must follow due procedure: Bihar CEO

The CEO’s office said that objections must adhere to the Election Commission’s established procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Specifically, the CEO emphasised that objection to deletion of any name… may be given only in Form 7, or Booth Level Agents… may give the affidavit in the prescribed form along with declaration as per Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Furthermore, referencing the Supreme Court interim order dated August 22, 2025, the CEO mentioned that “Any incorrect information in the draft voter list should be submitted… in the prescribed format to the concerned Electoral Registration Officer.”

89 lakh names, need proper oath and format — CEO on mass deletion demand

Addressing the INC’s claim that 89 lakh irregularities were flagged, the CEO’s office questioned the legitimacy of such a large-scale deletion request. While District Congress Committee (DCC) presidents recently sent letters demanding deletions, the CEO noted that the objections given by the Presidents of the District Congress Committee are not in the prescribed form.

These are being forwarded for consideration, but the CEO added that “Before initiating the process of deletion of names of about 89 lakh voters… the Electoral Registration Officer will take an appropriate decision… after taking such oath as may be prescribed, at his discretion, under Rule 20(3)(b).”

However, the demand for a complete re-verification of deleted names—especially women and marginalised groups—has now become a rallying cry for the Congress, while the EC insists that proper procedures exist and are being followed.

Related:

In Bihar 3 lakh electors served with doubtful citizen notices by Election Commission

Bihar SIR: New elector applications doubled in just 2 days, showing a 96.6% increase

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

The post 89 lakh complaints of irregularities during Bihar SIR were rejected by ECI: Congress appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A standard EC notice to affected voters states that inconsistencies in documents have raised “reasonable doubt” about their eligibility to remain on the electoral roll. Individuals have seven days to present original documents to avoid deletion — a deadline many fear they cannot meet. As per the Election Commission, the draft electoral roll released on August 1 includes 7.24 crore voters. These individuals have until September 1 to submit documents proving their eligibility, choosing from a list of 11 approved options provided by the EC.

Citizenship proof becomes central eligibility test

For the first time in decades, the revision is not merely checking age, address, or duplication — it requires proof of Indian citizenship, especially for those enrolled after 2003 or born after July 1, 1987.

The verification exercise has flagged individuals despite holding multiple valid Indian IDs like Aadhaar, ration cards, and domicile certificates. However, citizenship status, not document possession, is now the core criterion. Some individuals have been labelled as suspected nationals of Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, or Afghanistan based on undocumented suspicions or familial ties.

65 lakh names already deleted in draft roll published on August 1

The EC’s draft voter list, released on August 1, showed a staggering 65 lakh deletions across Bihar. The reasons cited include death, migration, duplication, and untraceability. The fresh batch of 3 lakh names flagged under “doubtful citizenship” is over and above this earlier purge.

Simultaneously, the EC claims that 99.11% of electors have submitted documents for verifications. Adding further that the final rolls will be published on September 30, ahead of the likely November assembly polls, as per a report in the Times of India.

The Seemanchal region has emerged as the epicentre of this sweeping scrutiny. These districts, abutting international borders, are home to migrants, minorities, and people with historically ambiguous documentation, a legacy of partition, porous borders, and circular migration.

Discrepancies in documents were first observed by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), followed by local inquiries before notices were issued.

What the notice states?

According to a report in the The Indian Express, the printed notice issued by the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) does not cite any specific rule or legal provision. It simply states that it is a notice for the “verification of entries in the draft roll.” It mentions that the elector’s name was included in the draft roll based on the enumeration form and declaration.

“Lekin aapke dwara prastut dastavezo ke satyapan ke dauraan, aisa pratit hota hai ki aapke dwara prastut dastavezo mein visangatiya hai, jisse es vidhan sabha shetra mein matdata ke roop mein panjikrit hone ke aapke aadhikar par yathochit sandeh utpan hota hai (However, during the verification of the documents submitted by you, discrepancies were found that create reasonable doubt as to your right to be enrolled as an elector of this Assembly constituency),” one of the notice states.

With little access to legal aid, and many being illiterate or semi-literate, residents are struggling to understand or respond to EC directives. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) admit being overwhelmed.

Minimal response from major political parties

Despite the scale of potential disenfranchisement, political parties have shown limited engagement. Only 117 formal objections or claims have been filed in the past month — 108 by CPI-ML, and just 9 by RJD. No ruling or major national party has mounted a legal or political challenge.

Meanwhile, as of August 28, the ECI had received a total of 2,11,650 applications from individuals and political parties seeking inclusion or deletion of names from the draft rolls.

No tribunal, no appeal mechanism in Bihar

In Assam, voters marked ‘D’ (doubtful) are referred to Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) under the Foreigners Act, 1946, or its successor, the Foreigners Act, 2025. 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.

Sabrang India, in its July 9, 2025 report, made a strong apprehension that “The Centre appears to be engineering an Assam-like situation in Bihar — without legislative backing or procedural safeguards.”

The Assam precedent: a warning, not a model

In Assam, following an ECI order in 1998, thousands of individuals were marked as ‘D-voters’. Today, around 1.2 lakh people remain disenfranchised, still waiting for Foreigners Tribunals to rule on their status. The process has been slammed for being arbitrary, slow, and opaque, with no adherence to the Indian Evidence Act or constitutional protections.

If a similar path is followed in Bihar without any legislative oversight, lakhs may permanently lose the right to vote — not due to foreign origin, but due to bureaucratic misclassification and the absence of legal recourse.

SC allows online inclusion requests with Aadhaar, urges political parties to actively assist

On August 22, the Supreme Court issued key directions to address procedural and accessibility concerns in the electoral roll revision process. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ruled that electors excluded from the draft roll may submit inclusion applications online, along with a copy of their Aadhaar card.

The Court also directed all 12 recognised political parties in Bihar to activate their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) and assist citizens in filing claims and objections. Noting the lack of engagement, the Bench observed that “Although there are about 1.6 lakh Booth Level Agents of political parties, only two objections have come from them.”

Referring to the ECI’s submission, the Court highlighted that if all BLAs verify just 10 documents each day, 16 lakh verifications could be completed within 4–5 days, reinforcing the decision to retain the existing deadline.

Related

Bihar SIR: New elector applications doubled in just 2 days, showing a 96.6% increase

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

99.8% of 65 lakh voter deletions go unchallenged on 13th day of objection period

The post In Bihar 3 lakh electors served with doubtful citizen notices by Election Commission appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Chief Election Commissioner
New Delhi
20 August 2025

Hon’ble Sir

Please allow me to introduce my humble self.

I inherited a furniture business from my late father, Behramji Navrozeji Puranafurniturewala.  I love to tinker with vintage furniture. I chisel and polish them to befit the glory of Amrit Kaal.  I am also known for my observations on social events. I write occasional letters to global leaders who, I would like to believe, value my sharp analysis of current affairs and my typical Bawa sangfroid!

I have been watching the Special Intensive Revision exercise in Bihar (SIR) with great interest. I laud your most noble goal of disqualifying folks who have no business to be in our glorious land and who should have no contact, whatsoever, with our holy ballot boxes.

Unprincipled elements have, however, created a foul narrative that suggests that you are deviously invalidating citizenship rights of people. Where you say you have rightfully expunged 6.5 mill folks in Bihar from the electoral rolls, those who envy your powers say that you have denied 6.5 mill folks their rights!

Your goal is honorable. Sir.  Do not shy away from it. I implore you to embark on this mission nationwide. I would only recommend that you simplify your methods to those that ordinary people can relate to.

Here are some suggestions on simplifying the Indian citizenship exercise:

• A self-attested affidavit confirming that the applicant has on numerous occasions given or accepted “donations of gratitude” to get things accomplished when official methods did not yield desired results, with examples of no less than five instances of merit. This is the surest way to certify that the applicant has Indian DNA.
• Men can provide self-attested affidavits confirming that they have been living their lives following the purest traditions of patriarchy, archetypal in our land. They can provide examples of their practices, habits and rituals that validate their claim. Once their claims have been found valid, which should be routine, all women living with such men should be granted automatic citizenship.
• Those owning vehicles or driving ones for vehicle owners, can self-certify how many times a day they hoot or honk or park their vehicles in “No Parking zones”. Those exceeding five times a day, must be regarded as citizens. Those falling short must undergo “appropriate orientation”, before re-applying.
• People who live in neighborhoods that are unsanitary by any hygiene standards – those living near piles of garbage, those willfully disposing off garbage on the roads, in the rivers, in public spaces, those who walk past garbage multiple times during the day without batting an eyelid, should easily qualify as Indian citizens. A simple self-attestation with relevant pictures of garbage as described in above situations, should suffice.
• What about folks who live most of their lives in the digital world? They should be treated with equal courtesy. Folks with social media profiles that discredit others on the basis of their caste, class, gender, color, orientation should be considered native citizens and can provide self-attestation with screenshots of their social media posts.
• Those who have refined “spitting” to a fine art and who can deploy their oral colored projectiles with pinpoint accuracy should send five unique photographs of their artwork and claim citizenship.
• Those who employ people and pay them way below “living wages” and / or make them work over 70 hours a week, ought to be a special category of citizens. No evidence should be required for such stellar folks.

I hope you get the drift. Your team can no doubt be a lot more creative and find easier and more convenient means of citizen identification.

Seeking documentary evidence like birth certificates, domicile certificates, passports, education certificates, caste certificates, family registers, land / house allotment certificates, has spooked folks of varying social class and literacy.

You may recall that the Hon’ble PM once said “There is simplicity in every Indian”. Hence expectations from them must also be innocent and simple. The documentary evidence that I have recommended will be recognized by folks across levels of social classes and literacy. These can be provided easily without much struggle. It will also obviate the need to employ short cut methods by your staff to “fill and sign the forms on behalf of the people without their knowledge” as has been alleged by some annoying elements of society.

I would also urge that you make the results public. Names of all who have qualified as citizens along with the basis of their citizenship should be made public. This will dispel all notions of ECI being opaque and arbitrary in its methods. Nomenclature of “citizenship categories” should be simple such as – Gratification Donor, Hooter, No Parking Veteran, Patriarch, Living with Patriarch, Digital Irritant, Living in Empathy with Garbage, Accomplished Spitter and Star Employer.

A welcome outcome of this exercise, if simplified as suggested, will be the easy exclusion of those who bring impediments to the growth and prosperity of our nation. These are folks who want to change things. They move around being honest, purposeful, sincere and caring. And trying to make a difference to other people’s lives! In other words, not minding their own business! For inexplicable reasons, they dream of an India that once celebrated its diversity and found strength in it – an India that should provide equal opportunity and dignity to all! Is such a nation desirable?

Your faithful and most law abiding citizen (by the Hooter criteria)

Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala

Related:

A Satirical Plea, Dripping with Envy, to President Xi Jinping of China

Seeking a Leader for Life – A satire

Cyrus calling Dhruv Rathee

A Cooperative Housing Society “embraces” the Vision of Viksit Bharat 2047

What are you doing Bro? Cyrus writes a 20 Point, Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi

The post A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following on two earlier reports released by the citizen’s platform in 2024, the report on the Lok Sabha elections and the Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir state assembly elections, this 214 page report includes a detailed study of the manner in which data has been collected for the ongoing Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The large section of analysis that deals with Maharashtra reveals shocking discrepancies between official data published by the CEO, Maharashtra  and the ECI, Delhi, massive post-midnight unexplained surges in voter/elector percentages and disproportionate spikes in Elector numbers since 2019 (Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha) and 2024 (Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha). Apart from anything else the report lists the close margin seats (amounting to 133 out of the state’s 283 seats) where stakes were high: 25 seats won by less than 3,000 votes, 39 seats by less than 5,000 votes and another 69 seats with less than 10,000 — suggesting that small anomalies could change outcomes.

At the outset, the current report released by Vote for Democracy, lays out what the ‘Weaponisation’ of India’s Election System? (IES) has amounted to since around 2017 onwards:

“The EVM-centred voting system has four critical components. Microchips to record the votes as cast by the voter, Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPATs) to audit and verify that the votes are recorded as cast and counted as recorded and Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) that upload the name and symbol of the candidates contesting on a particular seat on EVM/VVPAT. The fact that post 2017, the EVS (electronic voting system) is no more stand-alone but linked to the internet with the SLU having a labile memory has made the system susceptible to manipulation/meddling. The fourth critical component in the IES is Electoral Roll which is the voter’s list and because of the methods adopted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) large scale ‘disenfranchisement’ of voters looms large. Cumulatively these constitute the ‘weaponisation’ of IES. If allowed to continue it could sound the death-knell of electoral democracy!”

The detailed report also lists, with close to two dozen tables and 21 graphs the key findings related to the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections of 2024.

Key findings (Maharashtra)

1. Unexplained midnight turnout surge

1. 5 PM turnout: 58.22%; midnight: 66.05% — a 7.83% jump (~48 lakh extra votes).
2. Spikes: Nanded (+13.57%), Jalgaon (+11.11%), Hingoli (+11.06%), Solapur (+10.63%), Beed (+10.56%), Dhule (+10.46%).
3. Historically, late surges are minimal.

2. Close margins, high stakes

• 25 seats won by <3,000 votes; 39 seats by <5,000; 69 seats by <10,000 — meaning small anomalies could change outcomes.

3. Erratic and unverifiable voter roll changes

• Between the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections and November 2024 Assembly polls — just six months — Maharashtra’s electoral roll ballooned by over 46 lakh voters.
• The increase was concentrated in about 12,000 polling booths spread across 85 constituencies — predominantly in seats the BJP had lost in the Lok Sabha elections.
• Some booths saw 600+ new voters added after 5 PM, implying an implausible 10+ hours of extra voting time that did not occur in reality.
• Official elector data fluctuated wildly:
  • August 30, 2024: The ECI reported 9,64,85,765 voters, but the CEO Maharashtra’s own press release for the same date listed only 9,53,74,302 — a gap of over 11 lakh.
  • October 15, 2024: The CEO’s figure dropped slightly to 9,63,69,410.
  • October 30, 2024: Just 15 days later, the CEO’s figure surged to 9,70,25,119 — an increase of more than 16 lakh voters in two weeks.

4. Large-scale election data mismatches (2019–2024)

• In 2019, Maharashtra had 8,86,76,946 voters for Lok Sabha and 8,98,38,267 for Vidhan Sabha — an increase of 11,61,321 voters in just a few months. Votes polled rose from 5,35,65,479 (Lok Sabha) to 5,44,07,794 (Vidhan Sabha) — an increase of 8,42,315
• In 2024, the state had 9,30,61,760 voters for Lok Sabha and 9,70,25,119 for Vidhan Sabha — an increase of 39,53,259 voters in less than six months.
• Votes polled jumped from 5,69,69,708 (Lok Sabha) to 6,40,85,091 (Vidhan Sabha) — 71,15,383 more votes in the Assembly election than in the Lok Sabha election held the same year.
• Between 2019 and 2024:
  • Lok Sabha voter rolls grew by 43,94,814, but votes polled increased by only 34,04,229.
  • Vidhan Sabha voter rolls grew by 71,86,852, while votes polled increased by 96,77,257.
• The disproportionately high voter participation in the 2024 Assembly polls compared to the Lok Sabha— and the sharp, unexplained increase in registered voters within months — has not been explained by the Election Commission of India or the CEO Maharashtra.

Disproportionate Spikes:

12. SIX MONTHS Between 2019 LS and 2019 Assembly:         +12.7 lakh electors.
13. FIVE YEARS Between 2019 LS and 2024 LS:                    +37.9–45 lakh.
14. FIVE MONTHS Between 2019 LS and 2024 Assembly:         +84.6 lakh.
15. SIX MONTHS Between May–Nov 2024 (LS to Assembly): +41 lakh.
16. SEVEN MONTHS Between March–Oct 2024 (LS to Assembly): +46.7 lakh.

• These inconsistencies point to major roll integrity concerns and require urgent ECI and CEO Maharashtra clarification.

5. Sudden vote surges benefiting specific parties

• In the Lok Sabha elections (May 2024), BJP averaged 88,713 votes per Assembly segment.
• In the Assembly elections (November 2024), BJP averaged 116,064 votes per seat — a sudden 28,000 vote increase per seat without matching demographic growth.
• Examples:
  • Kamthi: Congress vote stayed flat (~1.35 lakh) while BJP gained 56,000 votes; voter list increased by 35,000.
  • Karad (South): 41,000 more votes than six months earlier — a rise not seen in five years.
• In the Nanded Lok Sabha by-election, Congress won the parliamentary seat but lost all six Assembly segments in the same area, with 1.59 lakh fewer votes at the Assembly level despite simultaneous polling. 

6. High-profile anomalies

• Nagpur South West added 29,219 voters in 6 months — above ECI’s 4% verification threshold; BLOs confirmed incomplete checks.
• Markadwadi village, Solapur, alleged EVM results did not reflect actual votes; police blocked a paper-ballot mock poll.

7. Procedural and technical anomalies

• Reports of routers near polling stations, sudden power cuts during counting, EVMs arriving late at strong rooms, CCTV failures, and alleged strong room breaches.
• In some booths, EVM batteries showed 99% at counting start, inconsistent with normal discharge.
• Mismatches between Form 17C (polling station record) and Control Unit counts.
• VVPAT concerns: potential internet connectivity and no public audit of slips.
• Questions over whether ECI independently controls EVM source code.
• Conflict of interest: BJP members on boards of ECIL & BEL — EVM manufacturers.

8. Data secrecy and legal changes curtailing scrutiny

• December 2024: ECI amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules to restrict access to CCTV footage and Form 17C — just days after a court ordered their release in another state’s polls.
• May 2025: Retention of election CCTV footage cut from up to one year to 45 days, enabling destruction of crucial evidence before legal challenges can proceed.
• Despite 100% webcasting of polling stations, neither video footage nor VVPAT slips are available for public verification. 

9. Inaction on hate speech

• Despite 100+ complaints during the Maharashtra polls, including from specific constituencies and named leaders, no visible ECI action was taken. 

Why Maharashtra Matters

The scale, precision, and constituency targeting of these anomalies suggest a structured pattern of electoral manipulation — not random administrative error. Maharashtra’s 2024 Assembly election case study stands as a warning for future polls across India.

While the report briefly notes concerns over Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of rolls, Maharashtra offers the clearest, most data-backed evidence of the “weaponisation” of India’s election system.

The press release dated August 16 echoes the demands raised in the Report:

• De-centralise voter system: ECI to conduct only Parliamentary/Presidential elections; State ECs to conduct Assembly and local polls. They should be strengthened suitably.
• Immediate forensic audit of EVMs, VVPATs, and voter rolls.
• Public release of machine-readable rolls, Form 17A/17C, and CCTV footage.
• Rollback of restrictive Rule 93 amendments; restore transparency safeguards.
• Legislative guarantees for end-to-end vote verifiability.

Related:

The curious case of Mumbai Mahanagari’s 36 seats: who holds the winning card?

Congress raises alarm over manipulated voter rolls in Maharashtra Assembly elections

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

EVM row: Winning MLA from Malshiras (Markadwadi) issues ultimatum to ECI, demands elections by ballot papers

Markadwadi, Pune, Sholapur, Akola, are protests against ECI mounting in Maharashtra?

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

The post Major Irregularities in 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Polls; Vote for Democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire text of the letter may be read here:

To

Shri Gyanesh Kumar

Chief Election Commissioner

Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu

Election Commissioner

Dr Vivek Joshi

Election Commissioner

Dear S/Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi,

Many TV channels have just now aired a press conference held by the leader of a national political party today (https://youtu.be/fi9Y0yWsPkg), in which he alleged irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls in Karnataka and a few other States. His allegations revolving around factual information, seemed to be based on an audit of hard copies of electoral rolls available in the public domain. 

If I were to be in your place in the Election Commission, I would have ordered a thorough verification of the factual information released in the press conference to satisfy myself of the veracity of the basis for the allegations, as those allegations, if they were to be factually correct, would have serious implications for the integrity of electoral rolls in general. 

In my view, each one of you, responsible under Article 324 of the Constitution to enhance the overall credibility of the electoral process, should readily take cognizance of each and every complaint of that kind and suo moto get such a complaint verified, as feedback of that kind would help the Commission to identify the shortcomings in every segment of the electoral process and take corrective measures.  

What surprised me was that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka lost no time in issuing a notice to the concerned political leader calling upon him to “substantiate his claims of electoral fraud with a signed declaration under oath, as per Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960”.

I am sure that the CEO would not have responded so promptly without keeping the Commission informed. The impression I get from this that the Commission and its officers treat every complainant as an adversary and, instead of taking advantage of the contents of the complaint as a means to scrutinise the integrity of preparation of electoral rolls at the ground level, call upon the complainant to swear that the complaint is based on facts, whereas all those facts could be readily cross-verified with the help of the enormous resources they have at their command. It appears to me that the Commission and its machinery are more anxious to prove that the complainant is wrong than welcoming such a complaint as a part of a readily available feedback system that helps the Commission in constantly improving its internal procedures and practices. The effectiveness of the Commission  depends crucially on its ability to respond to public complaints in a meaningful manner and its ability to elicit public trust. If it closes its doors to public complaints and complaints from political parties, it loses the advantage of using such complaints as a means to correct its own internal procedures in a transparent manner. I am afraid that the Commission, in recent times, let go of such excellent opportunities, as it has resorted to treating complainants as adversaries.

In this connection, I refer to a letter I addressed you some time ago in which I had expressed my concerns about several issues that remained unaddressed, that would erode the credibility of the electoral process. While the Commission may not care to respond to a letter from a senior citizen like me, the least that the Commission could have done was to ponder over the concerns expressed by me and take appropriate corrective measures. To the best of my understanding, the Commission has chosen to ignore those concerns, perhaps adopting its usual stance of treating all such complaints as irritants.

Once again, let me caution you that the Commission’s effectiveness as an apolitical Constitutional authority would critically depend on its ability to respond to public complaints in a constructive manner, rather than treating them as vexatious.

All the best,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to the Government of India

Visakhapatnam 

Related:

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

SC to ECI: Explain alleged irregularities in deletion of 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert

Memo to ECI: Make Voter’s Form 17Cs list accessible on Commission website, clean up existing, technologically messy EVS structure, say citizens

The post Election Commission must take the Indian people into confidence, correct its procedures & practices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, the ECI’s figures also highlight a large number of electors identified for potential exclusion. These includes, 21.6 lakh deceased electors, 31.5 lakh electors who have permanently migrated, 7 lakh electors found to be registered at more than one location, 1 lakh electors categorised as “untraceable.” Fewer than 7 lakh electors whose forms have not yet been received despite door-to-door visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Booth Level Agents (BLAs).

Combined, these figures suggest that over 61 lakh voters could potentially be excluded from the draft electoral roll. The ECI maintains that the primary aim of the Bihar SIR is to ensure no eligible voter is left out while ineligible names are removed, asserting its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of electoral rolls. 

To this end, booth-level lists of those who haven’t filled forms, deceased, and permanently migrated electors were shared with all political parties on July 20, 2025, for error verification. Furthermore, electors and political parties have until September 1, 2025, to file claims for missing names or raise objections to incorrect inclusions.

This latest data from the ECI comes amidst intense political backlash and growing concerns. Just yesterday, July 24, reports highlighted a shocking 809% surge in “untraceable” electors in Bihar, jumping from 11,484 on July 22 to 1 lakh by July 23. Overall deletions had also dramatically increased by 3 lakhs in just 24 hours, reaching 56 lakhs by July 23. Opposition parties, led by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, have threatened to boycott the upcoming state polls, alleging that the SIR is a “sinister plot” by the Modi government to disenfranchise marginalised communities and manipulate electoral outcomes.

ECI’s press note dated 24.07.2025 can be read here:

INDIA Bloc protests, Kharge dramatically tears symbolic SIR document and placed in dustbin

The political climate in Parliament became strained as the INDIA bloc maintained its protests for a third consecutive day at outside the parliament. The bloc expressed strong disapproval of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar. Members of Parliament from the opposition parties conducted a demonstration outside Parliament, conveying their opposition to what they characterise as an attempt to alter voter lists. Their protest commenced with a march from Prerna Sthal to Makar Dwar. The opposition has voiced concerns that this process in Bihar could precede a broader effort concerning voter registration nationwide.

The INDIA bloc MPs staged a protest outside Parliament premises, expressing strong objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise being undertaken by the Election Commission of India in Bihar.

New Delhi pic.twitter.com/YPtOsRql1x

— Congress (@INCIndia) July 25, 2025

During the INDIA bloc’s protest, Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, tore up a symbolic SIR document and placed it in a dustbin. This action, which was widely observed, represented the opposition’s rejection of the ECI’s plans for voter list revisions.

Kharge openly challenged the ECI’s proposed nationwide SIR, referencing its notification dated June 24. He criticised the government, stating, “The Modi government’s aim is to hinder the voting participation of the poor, Dalits, tribals, backward classes, minorities, and the disadvantaged, in order to modify the Constitution of India in accordance with the Manusmriti.”

| LoP in Rajya Sabha, #MallikarjunKharge, symbolically tears up the #SIR and throws it into a dustbin during the INDIA bloc’s protest on the Parliament premises.#Parliament #MonsoonSession2025 #TheStatesman pic.twitter.com/rydRLJ7FGB

— The Statesman (@TheStatesmanLtd) July 25, 2025

He further elaborated, “The RSS-BJP has always wanted to deprive the weaker sections of society of their voting rights, and now, through the use of SIR, it is determined to fulfil its long-standing intention.” 

The Congress President expressed profound disappointment, stating, “It is deeply unfortunate that a constitutional institution like the Election Commission is supporting the BJP-RSS in this conspiracy of ‘vote suppression.” He brought to light alleged ground realities, claiming, “The entire country has seen how, in Bihar, the Election Commission’s BLOs are making their own people fill out forms to strip the deprived sections of society of their voting rights.” 

Kharge warned of a broader implication, asserting, “Now, the Election Commission will carry out this same task across the entire country. The BJP has an aversion to the Constitution of India and democracy. Every day, it devises new ways to attack the Constitution created by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar and Pandit Nehru.” 

चुनाव आयोग ने आज आधिकारिक एलान किया है कि वह Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Exercise पूरे देश में लागू करेगा।

मोदी सरकार ग़रीबों, दलितों, आदिवासियों, पिछड़े वर्ग, अल्पसंख्यकों और वंचितों के वोट काटना चाहती है, ताकि वो भारत के संविधान को मनुस्मृति के मुताबिक बदलाव कर सके।… pic.twitter.com/wGjYXIADGL

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) July 25, 2025

Amidst the storm of protests and accusations, the Election Commission of India’s June 24 order on the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls stands as a crucial point of contention. In its order, the ECI explicitly stated, “Commission has now decided to begin the Special Intensive Revision in the entire country for the discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of electoral rolls…The schedule for SIR in the rest of the country will be issued in due course.” 

“100% solid proof of vote theft!” – Rahul Gandhi

The Congress MP and Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, entering the fray with an explosive claim. Gandhi directly challenged the ECI, stating, “The Election Commission should not remain under any illusion! We have 100% solid proof of your tactics to steal votes.” 

चुनाव आयोग गलतफहमी में न रहे!

वोट चोरी करने के आपके हथकंडों के 100% पुख्ता सबूत हैं हमारे पास।

हम उन्हें सामने भी लाएंगे और आप इसके अंजाम से बच नहीं पाएंगे – लोकतंत्र और संविधान को बर्बाद करने की कोशिश करने वाले बक्शे नहीं जाएंगे। pic.twitter.com/gYAVbDo20O

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 24, 2025

He issued a stern warning, asserting, “We will bring them to light, and you will not escape the consequences – those who try to destroy democracy and the constitution will not be spared.” 

“Misleading and Baseless!” – commission rejects Gandhi’s allegations

In a swift and unequivocal response, the Election Commission of India, through its official X handle, categorically rejected Rahul Gandhi’s severe allegations. The ECI’s official statement declared, “the claim made in this social media post is misleading and baseless.” 

#ECIFactCheck

इस सोशल मीडिया पोस्ट में किया गया दावा भ्रामक और निराधार है

विस्तार में जानने के लिए, नीचे दिए गए इस मुख्य निर्वाचन अधिकारी, कर्नाटक के लिंक को देखिए।https://t.co/TBcX8aUwji

चित्र में विवरण पढ़ें https://t.co/fdiDWMDttL pic.twitter.com/HZ73NxwlJc

— Election Commission of India (@ECISVEEP) July 24, 2025

Moreover, as the deadline for form submission will close tomorrow, the focus now shifts to the publication of the draft electoral roll-on August 1 and the subsequent claims and objections period. The significant numbers of potential deletions and the deep-seated concerns of the opposition ensure that the Bihar SIR will remain a heated topic as the state heads towards its assembly elections.

Related

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

The post Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional entity tasked with ensuring free and fair elections, has recently taken a step that signals a disquieting retreat from transparency into a constitutionally suspect zone of opacity. The ECI, reportedly, has mandated the destruction of all election-related CCTV, webcasting, and video footage after a mere 45-day period post-declaration of results. This executive order, presented as a benign administrative update, is in fact a measure with profound constitutional implications, posing a direct and formidable challenge to the foundational principles of electoral integrity, the citizen’s fundamental right to information, and the overarching rule of law.

This article posits that the ECI’s directive is a facially unconstitutional act. It is a colourable exercise of power that is manifestly arbitrary, directly infringes upon the fundamental rights to information and equality as enshrined in Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India, and systematically dismantles the architecture of electoral justice. By ordering the pre-emptive destruction of the most crucial and unimpeachable evidence of electoral conduct, the directive effectively sabotages the statutory right to challenge an election, thereby undermining the basic structure of the Constitution, which is predicated on the pillars of democratic accountability and judicial review.

The analysis herein will proceed in a structured manner to build this constitutional challenge. First, it will deconstruct the impugned directive and its legislative predicate—the controversial December 2024 amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961—to reveal an architecture of engineered obscurity. Second, it will examine the nature and limits of the ECI’s plenary powers under Article 324, arguing that these powers are intended to be a shield for democracy, not a sword against its core principles. Third, the article will establish the directive’s irreconcilable conflict with the judicially fortified fundamental right of the voter to be informed, a right that has been repeatedly expanded and protected by the Supreme Court. Fourth, it will apply the rigorous test of arbitrariness, as articulated under Article 14, to expose the flimsiness of the ECI’s official justifications. Finally, the article will conclude with a call for reversal to restore the vital light of transparency to India’s electoral process, without which democracy itself is diminished.

I. The Architecture of Obscurity: The Directive and its Legislative Precursor

To comprehend the full constitutional import of the ECI’s data destruction mandate, it is essential to first dissect the policy itself and place it in its immediate legal and historical context. The directive issued on May 30, 2025 did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the culmination of a two-pronged administrative and legislative strategy that has progressively and systematically constricted the avenues for public and judicial scrutiny of the electoral process. This section will detail this strategic construction of an opaque regime, beginning with the directive’s radical departure from established policy, followed by an analysis of its legislative foundation, and concluding with a deconstruction of the untenable justifications offered by the Commission.

A. The May 30, 2025 Directive: A Drastic Reversal of Policy

The directive reportedly mandates that all “CCTV data, webcasting data and photography of election processes at various stages” shall be preserved for a period of only 45 days following the declaration of results. After this period, if no election petition pertaining to the specific constituency has been filed, the letter instructs that “the said data may be destroyed”.

This new policy represents a sharp and dramatic reversal of the ECI’s earlier guidelines. The earlier framework—outlined in a 2024 memo issued to all Chief Electoral Officers of states—had established a more nuanced and robust retention schedule.

Under those guidelines, the retention period for video and photographic evidence was tiered according to the specific stage of the electoral process, acknowledging the varying evidentiary relevance of different records. For instance, footage from the pre-nomination period was to be kept for three months, while recordings of critical processes like nomination, campaigning, polling, and counting were to be preserved for periods ranging from six months to a full year. This tiered system provided a reasonable and extended window for the discovery of irregularities and the gathering of evidence.

The new directive collapses this logical, multi-tiered structure into a single, dangerously short, 45-day deadline for all forms of electronic footage. The ECI has explicitly linked this 45-day period to the limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The radical nature of this policy shift is best illustrated by a direct comparison.

B. The Legislative Precursor: The December 2024 Amendment to Rule 93(2)(a)

The ECI’s data destruction directive was preceded and enabled by a crucial legislative change. In December 2024, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, acting on the recommendation of the ECI, amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The original text of Rule 93(2)(a) was a broad, inclusive provision that stated “all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection”.

The amendment was deceptively simple. It inserted the phrase “as specified in these rules” into the provision. The amended rule now reads: “all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection”. Since electronic records like CCTV footage, webcasting clips, and video recordings are not explicitly “specified” in the Rules as inspectable papers, this amendment effectively created a legal shield, removing them from the ambit of public inspection.

The timing of this amendment is highly suggestive of its intent. It was pushed through just two weeks after the Punjab and Haryana High Court, acting on a petition filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha, had directed the ECI to release election papers and videography related to the Haryana Assembly elections, as reported by The Hindu. The clear cause-and-effect relationship indicates that the amendment was not a proactive measure for good governance but a reactive manoeuvre designed to pre-empt further judicial orders compelling transparency. It was a move from a default-open system to a default-closed system. This legislative change laid the groundwork for the subsequent administrative directive; once access to the footage was legally restricted, the next logical step was to mandate its physical destruction.

This amendment has not gone unchallenged. A plea filed by transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj is currently pending before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment imposes “unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to information of voters” and seeks to keep crucial records out of the purview of public disclosure.

C. Deconstructing the ECI’s Justifications: A Veil of Plausible Deniability

The 2024 memo and later reports reveal a trio of justifications by the ECI for its new policy, each of which wilts under scrutiny and appears to be a veil for the directive’s true effect of fostering opacity.

1. The “Internal Management Tool” Fallacy: The Commission has claimed that videography and CCTV footage are not mandated by law but are used merely as an “internal management tool”. This characterisation is a gross misrepresentation of the role these technologies play in modern elections. The ECI’s own circulars state and call for use of CCTV and videography for a wide spectrum of critical processes. This includes the First Level Checking (FLC) of EVMs, the security of strong rooms where EVMs are stored, surveillance of critical polling stations, and the entire counting process. The existence of such detailed, mandatory protocols demonstrates that these recordings are not a peripheral or optional extra; they are an integral and indispensable component of the ECI’s own framework for ensuring electoral integrity. To dismiss them as a mere “internal tool” is to contradict its own established procedures and suggests a post-facto rationalization for an otherwise indefensible policy of destruction.
2. The Exaggerated “Voter Privacy” Concern: The ECI has also cited the need to protect voter privacy, arguing that the release of footage could lead to the identification of voters and expose them to pressure, discrimination, or intimidation. While voter privacy is a legitimate concern, the ECI’s solution—the complete and permanent destruction of all footage—is a disproportionate and extreme response. It is an argument that sacrifices the integrity of the entire electoral process at the altar of a speculative and manageable risk. Numerous less restrictive alternatives exist to balance privacy with accountability. For instance, access could be mediated through court orders, which is an existing process; footage could be redacted to obscure the faces of ordinary voters not involved in any alleged malpractice, or access could be limited to specific segments relevant to a legal challenge. The ECI’s choice of the most extreme option—annihilation of the record—over these balanced alternatives reveals that privacy is likely a pretext, not the primary driver of the policy.
3. The “Malicious Narratives” Pretext: The most heavily relied-upon justification is the need to curb the “recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media”. This was also a concern mentioned in the 2024 memo. Objectively, this rationale is constitutionally perilous. It amounts to a “heckler’s veto” over public information, where the potential for misuse by a few is used to justify denying access to all, including the judiciary. The duty of a state agency in a democracy is to counter misinformation with facts and to prosecute illegal misuse of data, not to eliminate the data itself. This reasoning shows a paternalistic and troubling distrust of the citizenry, the media, and the courts, assuming they are incapable of discerning context or truth.

The timing of this rationale is particularly telling. It follows the high-profile Chandigarh mayoral poll case, where CCTV footage was not misused for “malicious narratives” but was used by the Supreme Court itself to expose and rectify a blatant subversion of democracy. The most prominent recent use of such footage was to uphold the rule of law, not to spread misinformation. This context strongly suggests that the ECI’s stated fear of “malicious narratives” is a convenient cover for a more profound fear of “inconvenient truths” that objective video evidence can irrefutably reveal.

II. The Plenary Power of the ECI: A Shield for Democracy, Not a Sword Against It

At the heart of the ECI’s authority lies Article 324 of the Constitution, a provision that grants it vast and plenary powers to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process.

A. The “Reservoir of Power” under Article 324

Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India vests the “superintendence, direction and control” of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections in the Election Commission. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, provided the most authoritative interpretation of this clause. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for the majority, famously described Article 324 as a “reservoir of power” for the ECI. The Court held that this provision endows the Commission with the necessary authority to address any contingency that may arise during an election for which the enacted laws—such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)—are silent. The core principle is that where the law has a vacuum, the ECI can step in with its plenary powers to ensure that the constitutional objective of a free and fair election is not frustrated.

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 (6) SCC 1, the Supreme Court recommended an independent appointments committee, revealing a consistent concern with insulating the Commission from executive influence and preventing arbitrary action. The judiciary has consistently pushed for an ECI that is not only powerful but also independent, accountable, and non-arbitrary.

B. The Limits of Plenary Power: Subservience to Law and Fundamental Rights

The “reservoir of power” doctrine is not a license for unchecked authority. The Supreme Court has been equally clear about its limitations. The ECI’s power under Article 324 is fundamentally bound by two critical constraints:

1. Conformity with Existing Law: The plenary power operates only in areas “unoccupied by legislation”. Where Parliament has enacted a specific law governing a particular aspect of the electoral process, the ECI is bound to act in conformity with that law. It cannot issue directives that override, contradict, or frustrate the purpose and scheme of a validly enacted statute.
2. Adherence to the Constitution: The ECI, as a creature of the Constitution, must exercise its powers in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution’s fundamental tenets. Its actions cannot abrogate the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III and must not damage the basic structure of the Constitution, of which free and fair elections, democracy, and the rule of law are indispensable components.

The directive to destroy CCTV footage after 45 days transgresses both these boundaries. It is a quintessential “colourable exercise of power”—an action that, while ostensibly within the ECI’s administrative domain, is in substance an encroachment upon the legislative field and an affront to constitutional principles. The Parliament has created a detailed statutory framework for the resolution of election disputes through the mechanism of an election petition, as laid out in Part VI of the RPA, 1951 (Sections 80-116C). Section 87 of the RPA explicitly states that the trial of an election petition shall be governed, as nearly as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall apply in all respects.

This statutory scheme presupposes the existence and availability of evidence. By mandating the destruction of the most direct, objective, and unimpeachable form of evidence—video footage—the ECI is not merely “managing” an internal process; it is actively sabotaging the efficacy of the judicial process prescribed by Parliament. It creates an evidentiary vacuum that directly frustrates the ability of a High Court to adjudicate an election petition on its merits. This is a clear inversion of the Mohinder Singh Gill doctrine. The ECI’s power was intended to be used remedially, to fill gaps in the law to ensure fairness. Here, it is being used to create a gap—an evidentiary black hole—that subverts fairness.

For example, what happens when an election petition gets filed on the 44^th day post the declaration of results and in the course of the proceedings, the Court orders the ECI to produce the camera recording of the election process. The Election Commission can simply say that it does not keep such data and get away with it.

Furthermore, the directive runs counter to the entire trajectory of judicial thinking on the ECI’s institutional integrity. The Supreme Court’s interventions, from commenting on the abolition of Election Commissioner posts in S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 567, to mandating a new appointment process in Anoop Baranwal, have been aimed at strengthening the ECI’s independence and ensuring its decisions are judicious and not arbitrary. As the Court observed in  Dhanoa, when an institution is “accountable to none, it is politic to entrust its affairs to more hands than one. It helps to assure judiciousness and want of arbitrariness”. A unilateral executive fiat of this magnitude, which reverses long-standing policy and has far-reaching consequences for electoral justice without any public consultation, embodies the very kind of arbitrary executive action that the judiciary has consistently sought to curb. It is an exercise of power that prioritizes administrative convenience and opacity over the constitutional duty to uphold democratic accountability.

III. The Voter’s Right to Know: A Non-Negotiable Fundamental Right

The ECI’s directive to erase the visual record of an election is also a direct and frontal assault on a fundamental right that the Supreme Court has painstakingly carved out and fortified over two decades: the voter’s right to information. This right, derived from the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is the lifeblood of an informed electorate and the bedrock of a functioning democracy. The ECI’s policy of data destruction attempts to constrict this right, treating it as a limited, disposable privilege rather than the dynamic, non-negotiable right the Constitution guarantees.

A. The Evolution of the Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a)

The jurisprudential journey of the voter’s right to know began in earnest with the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), (2002) 5 SCC 294. In this seminal case, the Court was faced with the question of whether voters had a right to know the background of the candidates seeking their votes. The Court’s answer was an emphatic affirmative. It ruled that the right to vote would be meaningless without access to information about the candidates. For a citizen to make an informed choice, which is the essence of participation in a democracy, they have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to be informed of the antecedents of candidates, including their criminal records, financial assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications. The Court reasoned that “misinformation or non-information of any kind will create an ‘uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce'”.

When Parliament attempted to dilute this judgment by passing an amendment to the RPA, the Supreme Court stood firm. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, the Court struck down the newly inserted Section 33B of the RPA, which sought to prevent candidates from having to disclose any information beyond what was statutorily required. The Court powerfully articulated that the voter’s right to information is not a static concept that can be capped or frozen by legislation. It declared this right to be dynamic, one that must be allowed to grow and evolve to meet the needs of a maturing democracy. This judgment established a crucial principle: the fundamental right to information in the electoral sphere cannot be curtailed by ordinary legislation or executive action.

B. From Candidate Information to Systemic Transparency: The Electoral Bonds Judgment

The scope of this fundamental right was dramatically expanded in the recent, constitutionally significant judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds Case), 2024 INSC 113. Here, the Supreme Court extended the right to information beyond the individual candidate to the systemic issue of political party funding. In striking down the anonymous Electoral Bonds Scheme, the Court held that the secrecy of political funding violates the voter’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court’s reasoning is directly applicable to the present issue. It held that “information about funding to a political party is essential for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote in an effective manner”. The logic is clear: to make a truly informed choice, a voter needs to know not just about the candidate, but also about the forces and finances that influence the political system. This principle of systemic transparency is paramount. The conduct of the election itself—whether it is free from malpractice, whether counting is accurate, whether strong rooms are secure—is a critical piece of systemic information.

C. The Directive’s Assault on the Right to Information

The ECI’s directive to destroy video footage is a modern-day analogue to the unconstitutional Section 33B that was struck down in the PUCL case. While Section 33B was a legislative attempt to block access to information, the ECI’s directive achieves the very same end through administrative means—by physically and permanently destroying the source of the information. It is an attempt to “freeze and stagnate” the right to information by rendering it unenforceable.

The ECI’s narrow, litigation-centric view—that the footage exists only for the purpose of an election petition and is useless after 45 days—is a constitutionally flawed perspective. The right to information serves a much broader purpose than merely facilitating litigation. It is essential for continuous public discourse, academic research, media scrutiny, and civil society advocacy for electoral reforms. By destroying the raw data of an election’s conduct, the ECI prevents any meaningful post-mortem analysis of the process, shields systemic flaws from public view, and stifles the very debates that strengthen democracy. This is a direct infringement of the collective right of the citizenry under Article 19(1)(a) to receive and impart information about the functioning of a core democratic institution.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has consistently moved towards greater transparency. The ECI’s directive represents a stark and unconstitutional reversal of this trend.

The balancing act between the right to information and the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court meticulously performed in the Electoral Bonds case using a “double proportionality” test, is entirely absent in the ECI’s calculus. The Court acknowledged the privacy interests of donors but ultimately found that the public’s right to know was paramount for ensuring electoral integrity. In stark contrast, the ECI’s directive gives absolute and disproportionate primacy to a speculative privacy concern and a paternalistic fear of “misuse,” while completely extinguishing the concrete and judicially sanctified fundamental right to information.

IV. The Animus of Arbitrariness: The Directive’s Violation of Article 14

Beyond its infringement of the right to information, the ECI’s directive is constitutionally vulnerable for its inherent arbitrariness. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. Over decades of interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded this guarantee to serve as a formidable bulwark against arbitrary state action. Any executive or legislative act that is unreasonable, irrational, or capricious is liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14. The ECI’s data destruction mandate, when subjected to this test, reveals itself to be a textbook case of arbitrary executive action.

A. The Doctrine of Arbitrariness: Maneka Gandhi and its Progeny

The modern doctrine of arbitrariness was powerfully articulated by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. In this case, the Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be “fair, just and reasonable,” not “fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. Crucially, the Court established the “golden triangle” principle, holding that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive silos but are deeply interlinked. An action that is arbitrary under Article 14 would fail the test of reasonableness under Article 21 and could also impose unreasonable restrictions under Article 19.

Following Maneka Gandhi, the Court in cases like EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 4 SCC 3 explicitly stated that “equality is antithetical to arbitrariness” and that Article 14 embodies a guarantee against any form of arbitrary state action. This means that every action of the state or its instrumentalities must be based on reason and must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations.

B. Applying the Arbitrariness Test to the ECI’s Directive

When the ECI’s directive is placed on the anvil of the arbitrariness test, it fails on multiple counts.

1. Lack of a Rational Nexus: For an action to be non-arbitrary, there must be a rational nexus between the objective it seeks to achieve and the means adopted to achieve it. The ECI’s stated primary objective is to prevent the misuse of footage on social media to create “malicious narratives”. The means adopted is the blanket destruction of all footage for all purposes after 45 days. There is no rational connection between these two. The policy is excessively broad; it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. To prevent potential misuse by a few “non-contestants,” it penalizes all legitimate stakeholders, including electoral candidates, the judiciary, researchers, and the general public. The proper response to misuse is targeted legal action against the miscreants under existing laws (such as the Indian Penal Code or the Information Technology Act), not the pre-emptive destruction of a public record.
2. Gross Disproportionality: The measure is also grossly disproportionate to the harm it purports to prevent. The speculative harm of a few “malicious narratives” on social media cannot justify the certain and irreversible harm of destroying an entire class of crucial evidence that is vital for upholding the integrity of the democratic process. As argued previously, less restrictive and more proportionate alternatives are readily available. These could include creating secure archives, allowing access only through a court order, or implementing a system of redaction to protect voter privacy while preserving evidence of official conduct. The ECI’s choice of the most extreme and destructive option available demonstrates a lack of application of mind and is, therefore, arbitrary.
3. The Unreasonableness of the 45-Day Timeline: The 45-day timeline is itself a product of arbitrary and unreasonable logic. The RPA, 1951, provides a 45-day limitation period to file an election petition. An election petition is a serious legal undertaking that requires a petitioner to plead “material facts” and “full particulars” of any corrupt practice (Section 83, RPA, 1951). Gathering sufficient prima facie evidence of malpractice across a constituency—which can have over a thousand polling stations—consulting with legal counsel, and drafting a legally sound petition is a formidable task. The ECI’s directive creates a perverse situation where the clock for the destruction of the best evidence runs concurrently with the clock for filing the petition. This makes it practically impossible for a petitioner to access and analyse this crucial evidence to build a credible case before the deadline expires. The directive, therefore, does not merely align with the limitation period; it weaponizes it, using it as a guillotine to sever the link between a legal challenge and the evidence needed to sustain it.

This policy is both procedurally and substantively arbitrary. It is procedurally arbitrary because it was enacted as a unilateral executive fiat, reversing a long-standing, reasoned policy without any apparent stakeholder consultation. It is substantively arbitrary because the policy itself, as demonstrated, is irrational, disproportionate, and serves no legitimate public purpose that could outweigh the immense damage it does to the principle of electoral transparency. The arbitrariness is not an unintended consequence; it appears to be a deliberate feature designed to create a system of de facto impunity for electoral malpractice. By making the burden of proof for an election petitioner nearly impossible to discharge, the directive structurally insulates electoral processes from effective judicial review, a result that is the very definition of an arbitrary state action that undermines the rule of law.

The critical importance of video evidence is not a matter of academic speculation; it has been vividly demonstrated in recent events. The Chandigarh mayoral poll case (2024) stands as a powerful testament to this fact. It was solely the “unimpeachable” evidence captured by CCTV cameras that allowed the Supreme Court to witness the Presiding Officer brazenly defacing ballot papers. This video evidence enabled the Court to intervene decisively, overturn the fraudulent result.

The directive also unfairly shifts the burden of proof in election petitions. By destroying the best evidence, the ECI forces petitioners to rely on weaker, circumstantial evidence and oral testimony, which is notoriously difficult to marshal and easy to discredit. The state, through its instrumentality, is actively destroying evidence that could corroborate a petitioner’s claim, making an already difficult legal burden nearly impossible to discharge. This fundamentally subverts the notion of a fair trial as envisaged under Section 87 of the RPA, 1951.

The inescapable question that arises is stark: How many Chandigarh-style frauds would go undetected, unproven, and unpunished under the ECI’s new data destruction regime? By removing the most effective tool for exposing malpractice, the directive does not curb “malicious narratives”; it ensures that the official narrative, however flawed, is the only one that survives.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations: Restoring the Light of Transparency

A synthesis of the arguments presented leads to an inexorable conclusion. The directive is a colourable exercise of the ECI’s plenary powers under Article 324, as it is used not to fill a legislative gap for the sake of fairness, but to create an evidentiary vacuum that frustrates the statutory scheme of electoral justice established by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is a direct violation of the voter’s fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a), a right painstakingly developed by the Supreme Court in a series of landmark judgments from ADR (2002) to the Electoral Bonds (2024) case, which collectively establish transparency as a non-negotiable pillar of Indian democracy. The directive fails the test of arbitrariness under Article 14, as it is an irrational and grossly disproportionate measure that serves no legitimate public purpose sufficient to justify the complete destruction of a vital class of public records.

This issue must be viewed not as a one-off administrative misstep, but as a symptom of a worrying institutional trend towards opacity. Built upon the flawed legislative foundation of the amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the directive is part of a broader pattern where transparency is treated as a liability to be managed rather than an asset to be cherished. In a democracy, the answer to the potential misuse of information can never be the elimination of information itself. The path to strengthening public trust lies in greater openness, not in enforced obscurity. To reverse this dangerous trend and restore the light of transparency to India’s electoral process, the following actions are imperative.

The ECI must initiate a transparent, inclusive, and consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders—including all recognized political parties, civil society organizations working on electoral reforms, legal experts, and former election commissioners—to formulate a new, comprehensive “Election Records Retention and Access Policy.” This new framework should be codified in the rules and must:

1. • Establish a significantly longer, tiered retention period for all electronic records, with a minimum retention of at least two years for general elections, aligning with international best practices and providing ample time for litigation and research.
   • Create a secure, modern, and auditable digital archival system for this data to ensure its long-term integrity and preservation.
   • Establish clear, fair, and reasonable protocols for providing access to this data for the purposes of litigation, academic research, and public scrutiny. These protocols should incorporate necessary safeguards for individual voter privacy, such as court-mediated access or redaction, without resorting to the extreme measure of blanket destruction.

Upholding the sanctity of the electoral process is the shared responsibility of all democratic institutions. The ECI can best fulfil its constitutional mandate not by drawing a curtain over its processes, but by embracing transparency as the ultimate guarantor of its integrity and the public’s trust.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Opposition “merely protests in press conferences”, news reports on Sunday, June 29 suggest that the ECI is riding roughshod over all concerns and going ahead anyway!

This article by an expert, associated with Vote for Democracy asks:

• Is this move not a flagrant breach of Election Law?
• Is it move not part of a nefarious design meant to deal a serious blow to our election system and the Universal Right to Franchise?

This article further demands:

Has CEC Gyaneshwar Kumar been appointed to:

• Utterly violate Clause 19 of the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950 (hereinafter called RP ACT 1950)?
• To violate the RP ACT 1950 selectively against the poor, unlettered, homeless property-less, deprived citizenry?
• To also surreptitiously CAA 2019 & the dangerous NRC?

Does the CEC have the Constitutional Authority under Law:

• To define and judge the citizenship rights?
• To usurp the powers of the Parliament?

In June 24, in a sudden move just months before the forthcoming 2025 Bihar Vidhan Sabha Elections, the ECI under the present CEC has woken up to a special revision of electoral rolls, a process that has to be undertaken strictly in accordance with election law (Representation of People’s Act, 1951) and of course the Constitution.

This unilaterally announced and fundamentally flawed decision of the ECI must be seen in the context of a series of data denials of information to the opposition parties and the general public. Under Articles 324-326 of the Indian Constitution, all data preserved by the ECI is in good faith of the “people of India” and not under the control of a government then in power. The ECI has, in recent months undemocratically changed its own rules not to make available videography of polling booths post-closing time and has, been obdurately refusing to make available to the Opposition and public previous Electoral Roles (to enable detection of mass deletions and mass exclusions) in data which is in a readable and searchable format,

In this background of complete breakdown of trust and communication between the people themselves, Opposition parties and the ECI, the ECI issues this sudden diktat on June 24, 2025. Using a newly coined and specially designed term, ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, vide its No. 23/ESR/2025 dated June 24, 2025—an exercise that finds no legitimacy in either Article 324 of the Constitution of India nor in the Representation of Peoples’ Act 1950, nor either in the Electors Registration Rules 1960.

With these usurped powers, the ECI has issued “instructions dated June 24, 2024, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer Bihar, Patna directing therein the ‘Special Intensive Revision’ of Electoral Rolls, by July 26, 2025.” While claiming that the exercise has been necessitated because of “new demographic factors that have emerged in recent times”, the ECI’s decisions/actions do not find any objective basis.

The ECI has thereby directed the CEO Bihar to perform this self-appointed duty to decide as to whether each one of the voters is an Indian citizen or not, an exercise that the ECI with well delineated powers under the Constitution and the RPA-1950 is simply not authorised to do.

The ECI has further delegated this onerous task to the Block Level Officers (BLOs) who are, usually, Class 3 employees and cannot be authorised to decide on the citizenship of all the electors. No law empowers them to do so, especially those electors who have been registered to vote over several decades. Which means those voters who have enjoyed the constitutional right to universal adult franchise. As a result of this step, this scrutiny of Bihar voters who today touch 80 million –and increase from 77.26 million in the 2024 Lok Sabha (last June) —needs to be undertaken in just over a month!!! Will this process — hastily announced and compressed for completion in less than four weeks– moreover, one that has no basis in law or the Constitution be undertaken without the fundamental violation of Registration of Electors Rule 1960—since the legally mandate and mandatory time required for each step of this task has simply been overlooked, deliberately?

Enormity of the new task to be accomplished in one month

STATE WISE NUMBER OF ELECTORS – BIHAR

Source: https://www.eci.gov.in/general-election-to-loksabha-2024-statistical-reports

Under which Law does the ECI claims to draw the powers for such a draconian task?

The ECI in its directive letters No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II) dated June 24, 2025 (ibid) has claimed that it is empowered to do so under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and section 21 of the Representation of People, Act, 1950.

Let us examine the said provisions.

Article 324 in Constitution of India

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).

The ECI has been empowered to, ‘The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls’, but not to decide as to whether one is a citizen of India or not.

This is because there is a separate Citizenship Act, 1955 and Indian Citizenship is decided as per provisions of Article 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India.

Article 11 reads as under: Parliament to regulate the Right of Citizenship by law.

Therefore, the June 24, “directives” of the Commission are unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the articles related to Citizenship. Moreover, the ECI is unauthorisedly and illegally assuming the powers of Parliament, especially when it is seeking certain documentary evidence from any persons who are not included in the electoral roles of 2003 and are born before July 1, 1987 in as much as:

A person most deprived being homeless, unlettered, having no identity card, no land, no permanent residence certificate issued by Government, no passport, no pension payment order as he she does draw any service pension, issued before July 1, 1987 and who has not been included in the electors list earlier before 2003, either because the person is a minor, or because of the dereliction of duty by the ECI will be severely impacted.

In order to remove such arbitrariness, discrimination, favouritism, deprivation and chaos, keeping in view the actual conditions of the country provisions have been made under the RPA Act 1950 and The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to which we shall refer a little later.

First, the Clause 21 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950:

The said Clause 21 reads as under:

[21. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls. — (1) The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

2[(2) the said electoral roll—

(a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date—

As such in this clause 21 (1) one needs to concentrate on following mandate of the law to the ECI:

i) shall be prepared in the prescribed manner

ii) In accordance with the rules made under this Act.

ECI cannot and should not travel beyond the four walls by way of unauthorised outreach activities rather should concentrate on its sacred duty of conduction elections in a fair, transparent and absolutely impartial manner.

Consequently, it is clear that the instructions issued by the ECI, are patent violation of the provision of clause 21(1) as this intended action will nullify all the existing roles containing all electors that have been in effect –granting Universal Adult Franchise–in 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and the 2024 Lok Sabha elections apart from the elections to the Bihar state legislature during this long period of over two decades.

Further, this clause 21 of the RPA Act, 1950 is subordinate to the umbrella Clause 15 which reads as under:

15. Electoral roll for every constituency. —For every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.

Therefore, Clause 15 makes it patently clear that an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Possibly deliberately and with mala fide intent, the ECI has failed or refused to note is that all provisions for the ‘preparation of electoral rolls’ are to be read together, not just Clause 21 selectively.

There is no denying the fact that the ECI is empowered to have the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission for preparation of the electoral rolls but it is of a great significance that the ECI is duty bound to accomplish the task in accordance with the provisions of this ACT 1950, nothing more, nothing less.

Let us now glance at the provisions of the Act, ibid wherein, under Clause 19, the conditions for the registration of an elector are codified which the ECI has miserably failed to observe/maintain.

The same are reproduced here as under:

4 [19. Conditions of registration. —Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part, every person who —

(a) Is not less than [eighteen years] of age on the qualifying date, and

(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency,

shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.]

It is crystal clear that there are only two conditions required for any person to get registered as an elector namely the person should be of 18 years or more and should be ordinarily residing in the constituency. Further it is the clear mandate given to the ECI and the inherent right of the person that the person shall be registered in the electoral rolls. From the above provisions it is obvious that the ECI has no right to demand the documents as enumerated in its order from each and every elector who is was not registered in 2003. Worse, merely owning a house or a property in an area does not make one an ordinarily residing citizen as defined under Clause 20 of the rules Ibid which is as under:

20. Meaning of “ordinarily resident”. —6[(1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.

(1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.

Parliament, the law-making body—legislature– has been conscious of the need to weed out the wrongly registered voters (electors) and the provision to address this malady is contained under Clause 16 of the RPA Act 1950 and the same is as under:

16. Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. — (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he—

(a) is not a citizen of India; or

(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt 1*** practices and other offences in connection with elections.

The ECI’s unconstitutional and bombastic claim that it will seek a certificate of birth under Sub-clause(a) of Clause 16 is preposterous. Will the ECI then also seek a certificate of being sound mind as provided under subclause (b)of the Clause ibid.

What do the Rules for registration prescribe for getting registered as an elector?

Under Rule 13(1) of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, it is provided that a person has to submit an application in form No. 6. There is no distinction provided in Rule 13 (1) of the Rules between voters registered in 2003 or thereafter at any time. How can therefore the ECI make conditions that are contrary to this mandate?

The form also does not prescribe for the need to produce any certificates as has recently been announced by the ECI arbitrarily.

Under the 1960 Rules, there is a further provision that allows for correction in electoral roles—a person has to apply in form No. 8. To raise any objection for a wrongful or ‘fake’ inclusion of voters, an application has to be moved in Form No. 7. There is also a punishment prescribed for any false declaration made and hence the present architect newly framed by ECI smacks of a move uncalled for.

Time lines for the deletion of name as per instructions issued by the ECI vide No. 23/INST/2023-ERS Dated August 11, 2023

An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is not empowered to undertake this task, much less the BLO!

The Commission taking all aspects into consideration, including with a view to wrongful deletion during election year has directed that ERO shall not resort to a deletion without a form 7 and without following due process of verification as laid down in para 4 of the above said instructions. The due process of verification as laid down and prescribed in para 6 (ii) (iii) of the above instructions, is as under:

An application has to be submitted by an Objector on the prescribed form No. 7 for deletion of any name, supported by a declaration that the information filled therein is not false and a receipt is to be issued against the receipt of the application, there is a punitive clause for false entries as under:

Note. – Any person who makes a statement or declaration which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is punishable under section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950)

1. The election authority has to serve a registered notice to the concerned elector by registered post and the receipt of the delivery of the notice is to be kept in record
2. The person served the notice is supposed to reply with in 15 days after the issuance of the notice.
3. If no reply is received then the election authority asks the BLO to conduct a visit to the spot and makes all the records of time and date of visit, the person visiting and the person and exact place visited, the enquiries conducted and submit it to the competent authority who thereafter on expiry of further 15 days issues orders for the deletion.

The ECI– in its own wisdom– has prescribed following documents for the ‘special intensive revision’, oblivious of the ground realities or despite being aware of the same.

• any identity card
• pension payment order,
• identity card or document issued in India by government before June 1, 1987
• birth certificate issued by the competent authority,
• passport,
• matriculation certificates,
• permanent residence certificate issued by competent state authority and
• any land or house allotment certificate by government, among others.

Ground realities 

1. To seek a birth certificate of a person born before 1987 and also of his parents is nothing but a move calculated for exclusion. This also smacks of an indirect move to bring in the controverted National Register of Citizens (NRC), under challenge in the Supreme Court. Basically, this is also contrary to the law of the land in as much as the registration of births and deaths Act came into existence only in 1969 as under:

“The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) [31st May 1969] An Act to provide for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith”.

2. Those who are born before July 1, 1987 and were registered as voters after 2003 cannot be denied their right as Indian citizen by the ECI, without proceedings conducted as per law by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, to decide the citizenship issue.

3. Civil registration of births and deaths until 2011 (when the last Census was conducted) were at only 82.4% and 66.4% respectively. How then can we imagine that every legitimate birth and death of both father and mother of those born on or before July 1, 1987 will have been recorded through a birth certificate?

4. Even after making birth registration mandatory in 2023, as on March 11,2025 still 10 % of Indian births go unregistered.

5. The National Family Health Survey-3 conducted from December 2005 to August 2006, shows only 6.3% birth registrations in Bihar, 7.3% in UP, 9.5% in Jharkhand and 16.4% in Rajasthan while the national figure for this was 41.4%, and birth certificates granted only for 27.1% of the population.

6. In 199, in India only 52.1% population was able to read and write, around half of the population is totally unlettered. The figures for Bihar show the literacy rate at only 38.48% and among females only 22.89%. To go further, in 2001 only 87,60,589 out of 8,29,98,509 persons i.e., a poor 55% of the people had passed their Std X examinations making the ECI’s demand of a matriculation certificate a cruel joke.

7. As of December 31, 2023, 6.5 percent (92,624,661) of Indian citizens possessed a valid passport; now CEC Mr. Gyaneshwar is on to deny them their voting rights on grounds of not having a passport!

8. Between 2019 to 2023 the total number of passports issued in Bihar are 20,12,357, that is catering to around 1.5% population. (Parbhat Khabar digital Bihar May 17, 2025 6.05am)

9. 4% population does not possess own houses per 2011 census, but Mr. Gyaneshwar wants them to show papers of own house otherwise lose electoral rights.

10. gov.in › images › AADHAAR_NUMBERS_ENGLISHGOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION …As per RGI data, the total projected population (2022) of India is 137.30 crore (approx.). As on June 30, 2022, a total of 133.586 crore Aadhaar cards have been generated. Around 4 crores of Indians have not got even an Aadhaar card.

Under these circumstances, one wonders as to why- instead of using the scant available resources for conducting a fair impartial and transparent just elections in the state of Bihar, the ECI is undertaking an unlawful and unconstitutional electoral revision exercise, hell bent in punishing the poor and hapless who enjoys one right above all, the right to universal adult franchise.

(The author, one of the experts associated with Vote for Democracy is also Former Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh)

Related:

Who orchestrated APPs failures, the FM and her ex-FS or the ECI?

SABRANGINDIA EXCLUSIVE: Election 2024, ECI: Technical glitch, gross negligence or deliberate manipulation?

The post Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.