The Hindu: Published on 25th July 2025:
Why in News?
On July 21, 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. This SIR exercise has sparked controversy over its implicit citizenship verification process. Critics argue that it seeks to conduct a de facto NRC-like exercise under the guise of voter roll revision.
Background:
The SIR exercise began in Bihar aiming to revise electoral rolls “intensively.”
Petitioners allege it is disguised citizenship testing—legally questionable and logistically flawed.
The SC had advised ECI to consider Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards as identity documents — but ECI refused.
The counter affidavit argues the need for renewed citizenship proof even from existing voters, sparking fears of disenfranchisement.
What Has the ECI Argued?
Legal Authority:
ECI cites Article 326 and Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to claim it has the authority to conduct a ‘de novo’ (fresh) preparation of voter rolls, including verifying citizenship.
Citizenship as a Prerequisite:
The affidavit emphasizes that only Indian citizens can vote, thus requiring documentary proof of citizenship, especially from voters born after 1987, with stricter rules for those born after 2004.
2003 Electoral Roll Privileging:
Those whose names existed in the 2003 voter rolls are exempt from submitting new documents — a move viewed as arbitrary and exclusionary.
Exclusion of Aadhaar & Ration Cards:
Claims Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.
Rejects ration cards citing widespread forgery.
This contradicts ECI’s own SIR form, which seeks Aadhaar details voluntarily.
Why Is the SIR Exercise in Bihar Problematic?
Legal Challenges:
Lack of Legal Backing for Citizenship Verification:
No existing law mandates ECI to conduct a citizenship test.
NRC itself was never implemented outside Assam.
Flawed Interpretation of “Intensive Revision”:
The Representation of the People Act doesn’t even mention “intensive revisions.”
2003 guidelines used as precedent are not part of the affidavit.
The process privileges older records arbitrarily.
Violation of Due Process:
Existing electors, already verified, are being asked to prove citizenship again.
The law allows deletion of ineligible voters based on evidence-backed complaints, not mass re-verification.
Unfair Reliance on 2003 Voter Rolls:
Favors electors from 2003 and their children, marginalizing others.
Unresolved Status of CAA & NRC:
CAA 2003 and NRC are under legal challenge.
No NRC process has been officially launched outside Assam.
ECI is effectively enforcing NRC norms without legal mandate.
Logistical Challenges:
Incomplete Coverage-
As of July 24, ~7 lakh electors still haven’t submitted forms.
~53 lakh (6.7%) electors were not found at home.
Around 31.5 lakh had migrated, and 21.6 lakh were deceased.
Digitisation vs Documentation:
90% forms digitised, but many lacked supporting documents.
Verification of documents will happen after draft roll publication — undermining due diligence.
Resource Strain:
Heavy reliance on booth level officers (BLOs) and volunteers, many of whom failed to reach all voters.
The draft roll is scheduled for August 1, leaving little time for review and error correction.
Risk of Mass Exclusion:
Without documents, many voters may be dropped in final rolls — especially migrants, the poor, and minorities.
Key Concerns and Criticisms:
Backdoor NRC: Critics argue that the SIR mimics NRC without legal backing.
Disenfranchisement: Poor documentation among marginal groups could lead to large-scale voter exclusions.
Opaque Process: Lack of transparency on how many submitted valid documents.
Constitutional Overreach: ECI seems to go beyond its mandate by trying to determine citizenship.
What’s the Impact Likely To Be?
Legal Pushback: The Supreme Court may have to settle whether ECI can demand proof of citizenship beyond statutory limits.
Political Fallout: Could deepen distrust among minorities and opposition parties.
Voter Suppression Risk: Possible disenfranchisement of lakhs due to documentary deficiencies.
Precedent for Future Elections: May open the door for similar exercises in other states, raising national concerns.
Conclusion:
- The SIR exercise in Bihar, backed by ECI's counter affidavit, is legally controversial, logistically flawed, and potentially exclusionary.
- Its attempt to conflate voter eligibility with citizenship verification raises serious constitutional, political, and humanitarian questions.
- With the Supreme Court yet to weigh in decisively, the outcome could set a critical precedent for electoral practices and democratic inclusion in India.
