Special Intensive Revision | SabrangIndia News Related to Human Rights Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:29:27 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Special Intensive Revision | SabrangIndia 32 32 ‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar https://sabrangindia.in/define-special-intensive-revision-scope-make-it-clear-not-linked-to-citizenship-bjp-ally-tdp-writes-to-cec-gyanesh-kumar/ Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:40 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42828 Questioning the modus of the recently begun controversial SIR exercise, the TDP letter to Election Commission (ECI) states categorically that any such ‘Special Intensive Revision’ (SIR) should provide voters enough time, and that those in electoral rolls must not be required to re-establish eligibility “unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded”

The post ‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> TDP demands voter eligibility clarity: As serious questions and doubts continue to be raised over the ongoing ‘Special Intensive Revision (SIR)’ of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the ruling NDA’s second-largest constituent, has in a well-publicised letter, sought clarity on “the scope of the exercise” and demanded it should be made clear that it is “not related to citizenship verification”. Reports The Indian Express.

In a letter to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on Tuesday, July 15, written by TDP parliamentary party leader Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu and signed by five other party leaders, the party has written: “The scope of the SIR must be clearly defined and must be limited to electoral roll re-correction and inclusion. It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction.”

The letter was submitted to the statutory body (ECI) after the TDP leaders led a delegation there, as part of an ongoing exercise by the poll panel to take suggestions from political parties to strengthen electoral processes.

When queried about the letter, the TDP national spokesperson and one of the signatories, Jyothsna Tirunagari, said there was “no link” between the ongoing SIR in Bihar and the party’s suggestions. “We just met the EC and, as we were asked for suggestions, made our stand clear on the electoral process. We are a democratic party and would want transparency in the electoral process,” she told The Indian Express.

These suggestions by the TDP follow the communication by the poll panel to Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of all states on July 5, directing them to begin preparations for a ‘Bihar-like exercise — this time with January 1, 2026, as the qualifying date’.

Days after the Supreme Court questioned the EC on July 10, over the timing of the SIR in Bihar, the TDP letter says that any such electoral roll revision should “not ideally be within six months of any major election”. “To ensure voter confidence and administrative preparedness, the SIR process should be conducted with a sufficient time lead,” the letter says.

The N Chandrababu Naidu-led party has also said that voters included in the electoral rolls must not be required to re-establish their eligibility “unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded”, and called for a third-party audit under the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to identify anomalies.

Among other suggestions in the letter, include district-wise data on voter addition and deletions with explanations on the EC portal, permission to Aadhaar-based cross-verification, penalties for inaction by EROS (Electoral Registration Officers) and DEOs (District Election Officers), a state-level ombudsman under the EC to handle unresolved grievances, and targeted re-enrolment campaigns for migrant workers, tribal groups and senior citizens.

“Temporary address declarations must be permitted with basic documentation to prevent disenfranchisement of the mobile population… where voters are unable to submit documents at the time of visit, age-wise verification must be permitted,” the letter reads.

Signatories also included party MPs Byreddy Shabari and D Prasada Rao, and TDP state president Palla Srinivasa Rao.

Related:

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?

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 ‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Journalist Ajit Anjum booked for exposing Bihar’s SIR flaws https://sabrangindia.in/journalist-ajit-anjum-booked-for-exposing-bihars-sir-flaws/ Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:21:23 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42820 Senior journalist Ajit Anjum faces FIR in Balia, Bihar for exposing alleged voter list irregularities, he calls the FIR "a certificate for me as a journalist," vowing to continue reporting despite perceived intimidation tactics, Anjum said “I will not be scared. I will show only the truth”

The post Journalist Ajit Anjum booked for exposing Bihar’s SIR flaws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On July 13, 2025, a First Information Report (FIR) has registered against senior journalist Ajit Anjum and two associates, including his cameraman, at the Balia Police Station in Begusarai, Bihar. The complaint was filed by BLO Asarulhaq (Booth No. 16, 145) of Sahebpur Kamal Vidhan Sabha constituency. The core of the complaint, filed on July 12, 2025, alleges that Anjum obstructed government work and spread communal animosity. The FIR has registered under sections 223, 329(c), 132, 196, 302, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 123(3A) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.

According to BLO Asarulhaq, at approximately 9:30 AM, while he was uploading enumeration forms from the BLO App in the Gharakhand meeting hall, Ajit Anjum and his team “without authorisation entered the hall and began questioning me.” Anjum’s questions included inquiries about voter numbers, form distribution and collection, the number of Muslim voters, and the submission of paper forms.

The BLO stated he informed Anjum that his booth had 1020 voters and that all forms had been distributed and received. However, he further alleged that Anjum’s “focus was on claiming that Muslim voters were being harassed, which is completely false,” and that Anjum “prevented me from working for an hour, causing significant disruption to the work.”

FIR, a certificate for me as a journalist: Anjum

“This FIR filed in Begusarai isn’t a setback; it’s a badge of honour for me as a journalist,” stated Anjum. He asserts that the case was “bound to happen” as a direct consequence of his exposé on the Election Commission’s ‘SIR’ forms. Anjum urges viewers to watch the linked video in the comments, which he claims clearly shows the Election Commission’s flaws. He suggests that instead of addressing these shortcomings, an FIR was filed against him, inviting viewers to “make a judgment” for themselves.

Anjum’s stance: undeterred by “targeted action”

Anjum, however, remains resolute in the face of what he perceives as a targeted move by the administration. He confirmed that he has not yet received a copy of the FIR, stating, “I haven’t received a copy of the FIR yet; I’m waiting for it.” He revealed that prior to the FIR, he had reported irregularities in the ‘SIR’ forms in the Ballia block, after which he received calls from the local BDO (Block Development Officer) and SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer) pressuring him to delete the video. Anjum’s defiance was clear: “I didn’t listen to them, and now the consequences are evident.

There are a hundred questions about the Election Commission’s methods in Bihar. Instead of answering those questions, they’ve started an effort to intimidate journalists. I won’t be scared. I’ll only show the truth and report on the flaws.” He even stated he had voluntarily travelled to Begusarai from Kishanganj to ease the administration’s “trouble looking for me.”

Based on this Video, an FIR was filed, now watch and think: Anjum

Following the FIR, Anjum responded by re-uploading the video on his X handle. The video prominently features significant irregularities in the voter list revision’s form submission. It reveals that forms are being uploaded incompletely, with some containing only the name and signature, leaving all other columns blank and no photos attached. The video questions the credibility of such submissions. The official present, a Madam, acknowledges this as a “BLO’s mistake,” implicitly confirming a blatant violation of the Election Commission’s guidelines.

Anjum said that it is this very video that led to an FIR being filed against me, under a non-bailable section for obstructing government work. However, this charge is questionable given the circumstances. My colleague had first entered and inquired before I followed. When asked to stop recording, everyone involved exited with me, and I provided my contact number to the BLO after the shoot. Within ten minutes, I received a call from the BDO of Ballia, instructing me not to upload the video and warning that it “wouldn’t be good.” This was followed by two more calls from the SDO Madam of Ballia, urging me to delete the video.

These three calls are verifiable in my call records. Despite the pressure, I chose to make the video public instead of deleting it, resulting in the FIR with what I perceive as entrapment charges, Anjum said.

Ajit Anjum’s revelations: discrepancies in Bihar’s SIR process

Anjum’s relentless ground reporting from various corners of Bihar has meticulously exposed a systemic pattern of discrepancies within the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His investigations highlighted how clear guidelines are routinely circumvented, such as voters being denied mandated acknowledgment receipts. He also uncovered the absurd reality of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) themselves being supplied with only single copies of forms, forcing citizens to photocopy their own documents – a significant and impractical burden.

His reports have showed the voices of villagers struggling to meet arbitrary documentary demands, vividly illustrating the profound disconnect between policy formulation at higher levels and its challenging implementation at the ground level. He specifically flagged instances where forms were allegedly collected from voters without their full knowledge or were incomplete, asserting that action should be taken against the BDO and SDO, rather than solely blaming BLOs. He cited a news report from Dainik Bhaskar’s Begusarai edition that detailed “massive fraud involving forms” in a block, which he claimed mirrored his findings in Ballia.

Opposition leaders condemn action

The registration of the FIR has drawn sharp condemnation from opposition parties.  RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav took to X (formerly Twitter) to vehemently condemn the FIR, highlighting the ECI’s alleged indifference to “continuous irregularities, malpractices, constantly changing rules, and questions raised by the opposition and voters regarding the voter list revision process.”

He said that “senior journalist Ajit Anjum ji did exactly what an impartial and honest journalist should do immediately when irregularities are found in a crucial democratic process related to voters’ rights. When natural questions were raised about the deliberate irregularities and superficial efforts in the voter list revision process, on what moral grounds did the Election Commission get an FIR filed against Ajit Anjum ji after being caught red-handed? The filing of an FIR by the Nitish government against a senior impartial journalist is utterly condemnable.”

Congress leader Srinivas BV praised Anjum, calling the FIR “a badge of honour for his journalism,” and criticised the current ECI for “sycophancy to power,” alleging it has “forgotten its constitutional responsibility.”

However, the ongoing SIR is an unprecedented exercise initiated by the Election Commission of India in Bihar to update electoral rolls before the November 2025 assembly elections. While the ECI claims it aims for accuracy and purity, concerns have surfaced regarding its legality, arbitrary distinctions between voters, the burden of proving citizenship, and the potential for mass disenfranchisement, especially for migrants and marginalised communities. Petitioners, including ADR and others, argued in the Supreme Court that the SIR disproportionately targets certain groups and might be a de facto citizenship screening.

The Supreme Court on July 10, while not imposing a stay, urged the ECI to expand its accepted documents for identity proof to include Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration cards, emphasising that the focus should be on accurate identity, not citizenship.

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

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

The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate

The post Journalist Ajit Anjum booked for exposing Bihar’s SIR flaws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision  https://sabrangindia.in/bihar-sc-signals-that-eci-should-consider-aadhaar-epic-voter-id-card-ration-card-for-electoral-roll-revision/ Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:22:36 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42762 Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the sudden “special intensive revision” being conducted in Bihar by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Supreme Court (SC) pressed ECI to include Aadhaar, Voter ID Card, and Ration cards in Bihar's electoral roll revision process, since the only concern for the constitutional body was establishing accurate identity not citizenship

The post Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a mid-vacation hearing today on the ongoing SIR process in Bihar, the SC, while refraining from imposing an interim stay on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls, delivered an indication in its order that the ECI must consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), and Ration cards as valid documents for this exercise of establishing identity of voters. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a batch of petitions including the petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and connected matters [W.P. (C) No. 640/2025], RJD Member of Parliament (MP), Manoj Jha among several others also commented that the ECI’s existing list of 11 accepted documents is “not exhaustive” and must be expanded to ensure that no eligible voter is inadvertently disenfranchised.

The order comes amidst a heated legal and political debate surrounding the ECI’s stringent revision process, initiated just months before the Bihar Assembly elections in November 2025. Petitioners, represented by a formidable legal team, argued that the current guidelines are arbitrary, discriminatory, and threaten the fundamental right to vote for millions. What is being debated and questioned is whether, the ECI, under political pressure, is using the SIR to determine a person’s citizenship. The next date for hearing will now be July 28.

Special Intensive Revision: an unprecedented exercise without legal basis  

The petitioners, led by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankarnarayanan (for ADR), Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP Manoj Jha), Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shadan Farasat, and Vrinda Grover, launched a multi-pronged argument on the ECI’s impugned exercise.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan set the tone by questioning the very legality of the “Special Intensive Revision.” He argued, “What is permitted under the Act of 1950 and the registration of electors rules is two types of revisions. Intensive revision and summary revision.” He stressed that this “special intensive revision,” covering an astonishing 7.9 crore people in Bihar, is a “de novo exercise” being undertaken “for the first time in the history of India” and lacks any explicit backing in law. Sankarnarayanan pointed out the inherent contradiction in the ECI’s approach, which, despite annual summary revisions in other states, has now embarked on this “special” drive with a strict 30-day timeline.

Arbitrary distinctions and discriminatory safeguards

A key grievance raised by Sankarnarayanan was the arbitrary differentiation between voters.

“They gave the clarification that if you are in the 2003 roll then you don’t have to submit the documents but you still have to submit a fresh form. If you don’t submit that fresh form you are out of the electoral roll,” he explained.

This, he argued, created an “artificial distinction which the law doesn’t permit,” particularly by presuming citizenship for pre-2003 voters while demanding extensive documentation from those enrolled later, even if they had voted in multiple elections. The petitioners also highlighted discriminatory “safeguards” that exempted certain classes like “members of the judiciary and people proficient in arts, people who are great in sports etc.,” allowing officials to collect forms from their homes, while ordinary citizens faced stringent requirements.

The burden of proof and citizenship Screening

The core of the petitioners’ concern revolved around the shifting of the burden of proving citizenship from the state to the individual voter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly argued, “The burden is not on me to prove citizenship. Before they remove me from electoral roll they have to show that they have some document in their possession that proves that I am not a citizen.”  Besides, the ECI is a constitutional body mandated to conduct, oversee free and fair elections, including ensuring every person votes and those who are not do not; however it is not the competent authority to decide citizenship.

Sibal highlighted the impracticality for many citizens, especially migrants and the poor, to furnish the required documents, citing a Bihar government survey showing low possession rates for passports (2.5%) and matriculation certificates (14.71%). Sibal expressed dismay at the exclusion of Aadhaar, MNREGA cards, and even birth certificates, questioning, “Where will I get birth certificate of parents? This exercise is beyond the scope of Election Commission of India completely.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that “this is absolutely an exercise of doing citizenship screening,” which falls under a different legal procedure and outside the ECI’s direct purview. He pointedly questioned the ECI’s stance on Aadhaar: “The entire country is going mad after Aadhaar and then ECI says that Aadhaar will not be taken.” Advocate Vrinda Grover further emphasised that this “citizenship screening… is disproportionately targeting the poor, the migrants. Article 14 squarely comes in here.”

Threat to democratic principles

The overarching concern for the petitioners was the potential for mass disenfranchisement and its corrosive effect on democratic principles. Singhvi powerfully articulated, “Disenfranchising even one eligible voter hits level playing field, that hits democracy and that directly hits basic structure.”

The timing of the exercise, so close to the Bihar Assembly elections, also raised eyebrows, with Singhvi suggesting it “should be delinked with an impending election.”

ECI’s Defence: Constitutional mandate and statutory power

Representing the ECI, Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, K.K. Venugopal, and Maninder Singh, defended the revision as a necessary exercise to maintain the purity and accuracy of the electoral rolls.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted the ECI’s constitutional authority under Article 324 and statutory power under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct such revisions. He argued that the ECI “cannot and does not have any intent whatsoever to exclude anybody from the voter list unless and until the hands of the commission are compelled by the provision of law itself.”

He cited data indicating significant changes in the electoral roll, including 1.1 crore deaths and 70 lakh migrations, as necessitating an intensive revision.

Assurances of due process and hearings

A critical assurance from Dwivedi was that all the procedure will be followed all principles of natural justice will be followed. When pressed by Justice Dhulia on whether hearings on objections (in case of exclusion) would be granted, Dwivedi affirmed, “of course.” He clarified that pre-filled forms based on the January 2025 electoral roll are being distributed, and signatures are being collected door-to-door, implying that existing voters are not being ignored. He assured that only after all application forms are received would the stage of objections and claims begin, at which point Aadhaar could be used if an identity objection is raised.

Aadhaar as proof of identity, not citizenship

On the contentious issue of Aadhaar, Dwivedi initially clarified that “It is not a proof of certain things. It is only proof of identity.” He maintained that Aadhaar, while widely prevalent, does not automatically confer citizenship, as it can be issued to all residents. However, he also stated that the list of 11 documents was “not exhaustive,” which allowed the bench to question why Aadhaar, a document that often forms the basis for other listed documents like caste certificates, was excluded. His flip-flop on ration cards—initially conceding the list was non-exhaustive, then saying, “We will not accept ration card”—drew a sharp observation from the bench.

Bench’s observations and directives: a pragmatic approach

The two-judge bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi engaged actively with both sides, making several important observations.

Questioning the timing and purpose

Justice Bagchi repeatedly questioned the ECI on the timing of the exercise while saying that, “that’s why the question is why you are making this exercise relatable to an election coming in November. If it is an exercise that can be independent of the election for the whole of the country.”

Justice Dhulia concurred, remarking, “If you are to check citizenship under the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late.” He further observed, “The right to vote… there is no question that this issue is an important issue and goes through the very root of democracy.”

Focus on identity vs. citizenship

The bench noted the ECI’s conflicting stance on documents. Justice Bagchi highlighted, “all the documents you have listed are related to identity. The entire exercise is about identity.” He pressed Dwivedi that “Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.”

Justice Dhulia pointedly remarked, “A document that is the basis of so many other documents you are not allowing,” referring to Aadhaar.

Practicality and perception

Justice Dhulia also raised practical concerns about the short timeline and the potential for inadvertent omissions, stating, “We have serious doubt on whether you can follow this timeline. Remember you have to follow the procedure. It is something that is not practical.” He also highlighted the “matter of perception” created by the ECI’s actions.

No stay, but clear observations

Despite the petitioners’ strong arguments, the Supreme Court opted not to grant an interim stay at this juncture, primarily because the draft electoral roll is scheduled for publication only on August 1, 2025, and the matter is listed for further hearing before that date. This pragmatic decision allows the ECI to continue its data collection while ensuring judicial oversight.

The Court’s Order explicitly stated that “Mr. Dwivedi submits that the list of 11 documents is not exhaustive as the order June indicates then it is our view that the Election Commission will also consider the following documents such as the Aadhaar card, the EPIC voter ID card issued by the Election Commission, and ration card.”

The order further specified that a counter-affidavit from the ECI must be filed within one week, and any rejoinder before July 28, 2025, the date of the next hearing. The Court acknowledged the three key points of challenge; the ECI’s power to conduct the SIR, the procedure adopted, and the timeline.

However, the Supreme Court’s clear directive marks a significant development in the Bihar electoral roll controversy. While the ECI avoided an immediate stay, the implicit message is that the purity of electoral rolls cannot come at the cost of excluding genuine voters through overly restrictive or legally ambiguous processes. The onus is now on the ECI to demonstrate its willingness to incorporate the Court’s suggestions and address the petitioners’ concerns regarding fundamental rights. The July 28 hearing promises to be a crucial juncture, determining not only the fate of Bihar’s electoral rolls but also setting a precedent for future revisions across the nation, especially as elections approach.

SC order can be read here.

Download PDF

Related:

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

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

]]>