The Supreme Court has once again intervened to safeguard the sanctity of the voter’s right, directing the Election Commission (EC) to ensure transparency in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. While affirming the EC’s powers, the Court cautioned that these must be exercised reasonably, without straining citizens’ eligibility, balancing judicial review with EC’s independence.
In its directive, the Court asked the EC to publish district-wise details of the 65 lakh voters whose names were omitted in the draft roll released on August 1, specifying the reasons for each deletion: death, migration, or duplication. Importantly, the Court underlined that the right to vote begins with the right to know, insisting that such information be easily accessible to citizens through both physical and digital platforms.
Traditionally, electoral roll revisions in India have followed a system of upgradation, adding new voters and deleting ineligible names, without disturbing the core voter list. The present SIR in Bihar, however, represents a radical departure. For the first time, the EC has asked every voter whether they are a first time entrant or a long-standing elector, to reapply for inclusion in the roll. The process makes a distinction between those whose names were present in the 2003 electoral roll and those who were not. If a voter’s name was in the 2003 roll, they must now submit a xerox copy of that entry along with the form.
Those absent from the 2003 roll must produce additional documents to prove their citizenship. This shift effectively places the burden of proof on citizens, rather than on the Commission, a departure from Indian practice.
The requirement of fresh documentation has opened a complex debate about citizenship. The EC has excluded commonly used identity proofs such as the Aadhaar card and EPIC (voter ID) card, citing fears of forgery by illegal migrants. Instead, it now demands documents such as birth certificates, matriculation certificates, and caste certificates. This poses grave difficulties in Bihar, where official documentation is scarce.
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), only 2.8% of those born between 2001 and 2005 in Bihar have a birth certificate. Bihar’s overall literacy rate is 70.9% (Male-79.7% & Female- 60.5%), the rural literacy rate is 43.9% (Male- 57.1% & Female- 29.6%). Passports are even rarer. To complicate matters further, while the EC rejects Aadhaar as valid proof, the residence certificate which EC accepts, can only be obtained using an Aadhaar card, an irony that reflects systemic inconsistency.
The situation becomes particularly harsh for those born after 2003, who must submit their own birth certificate along with that of one or both parents. In effect, the EC’s process risks conflating voter registration with citizenship verification, a power that constitutionally belongs to the Central Government, not the Election Commission. This approach runs directly against the spirit of Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of continuity of citizenship. Once a person is deemed a citizen, that status cannot be put in doubt except by a law made by Parliament. By effectively asking voters to reestablish their citizenship through documentary proof, the EC is arrogating to itself a function that the Constitution vests solely in the legislature.
In Bihar, where poverty, migration, and weak infrastructure define daily life, the stakes of the revision are immense. Over one crore migrant workers, mostly daily wage earners, cannot afford the time or resources for burdensome documentation. Nearly 21% of the state’s population is illiterate and often lacks certificates now demanded by the EC. Ironically, while most possess Aadhaar, promoted as a universal identity, it is excluded from the accepted list. The burden falls heaviest on rural women, only 29% of whom are literate, for whom voting has long been the most tangible expression of constitutional equality.
The EC’s concerns about illegal migration and demographic shifts cannot be dismissed outright. Forged documents and fraudulent entries are real threats to electoral integrity. However, the solution cannot punish citizens for the state’s administrative failures. Making documentation the sole gatekeeper risks turning inclusion into exclusion. The Bihar SIR is more than a bureaucratic exercise; it is a test of India’s democratic commitments.
Electoral integrity cannot come at the cost of universal suffrage, the very principle that distinguishes Indian democracy from its colonial past. The Supreme Court’s intervention is a reminder that transparency and accessibility are not optional safeguards but constitutional necessities. If the EC persists in processes that burden the poorest and least literate, it risks converting a right into a privilege and democracy into exclusion.
Bihar’s experience is a warning: the health of Indian democracy depends not on how many names are deleted, but on how many citizens are empowered to remain on the rolls. Unless the Commission restores this balance, the Special Intensive Revision, degenerating into Special Irresponsible Revision, may well be remembered not as a cleansing, but as an erasure.
