Bihar’s electoral overhaul: Balancing integrity and inclusion in India’s democracy

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) recent initiative to undertake a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has ignited a fervent debate, blending legal imperatives with political undercurrents.

Announced in June, this comprehensive exercise, the first of its kind in the state since 2003, aims to update voter lists with July 1, 2025, as the qualifying date. With Bihar’s Assembly elections looming later this year, the timing has amplified concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly among migrant workers and marginalized communities. Yet, at its core, the SIR represents a statutory effort to safeguard the sanctity of India’s democratic process—one that demands a balanced scrutiny of its legal foundations, procedural rigor, and societal impacts.

The ECI’s authority to conduct such revisions is firmly rooted in the Constitution. Article 324 grants the Commission sweeping powers over the “superintendence, direction, and control” of elections, including the preparation and maintenance of accurate electoral rolls. This is reinforced by Article 326, which enshrines universal adult suffrage, entitling every Indian citizen aged 18 or above—barring disqualifications like non-residence or criminal convictions—to vote.

These provisions underscore a commitment to inclusivity while empowering the ECI to eliminate inaccuracies that could undermine electoral fairness.

Parliament has translated these constitutional ideals into actionable law through the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 21 of the Act explicitly authorizes the ECI to prepare and revise electoral rolls, a process elaborated in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Rule 25, revisions can be intensive, summary, or hybrid, allowing flexibility based on need.

An intensive revision, as chosen for Bihar, involves meticulous steps outlined in Rules 4 to 23, including door-to-door enumeration and verification. This ensures thoroughness, requiring enumerators to collect details from households and cross-check against a list of 11 specified documents, such as passports, driving licenses, or ration cards—expanded from seven in previous exercises, which the Supreme Court has noted as a “voter-friendly” measure.

The rationale for reviving an intensive approach after over two decades is straightforward yet profound. Bihar’s population has surged, with urbanisation and migration reshaping its demographics. The 2003 revision, the last comprehensive one, predates significant shifts, including the exodus of millions for work opportunities elsewhere. Bogus entries—deceased voters, duplicates, or those who have relocated—persist as a perennial threat, potentially distorting outcomes and violating the “one person, one vote” principle. The ECI’s drive seeks to purge these anomalies while enrolling new voters, especially the youth turning 18. As of July 12, over 74 per cent of Bihar’s approximately 7.9 crore electors had submitted enumeration forms, indicating robust participation in the process. This high response rate suggests the exercise is gaining traction, though challenges remain in reaching remote or transient populations.

However, SIR has not escaped controversy. Critics, including civil society groups, allege it risks mass exclusion, with reports emerging of draft rolls containing errors like incorrect photographs or entries for deceased individuals.

Petitions before the Supreme Court, led by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claim that around 65 lakh names were omitted from the draft roll without adequate justification, disproportionately affecting migrants, the poor, and minorities. These groups argue that the process violates statutory rights, as voters have a legal entitlement to remain on rolls unless proven ineligible. The exclusion of Aadhaar as a verification document has been praised for broadening options but questioned for its potential to complicate verification in a state where digital access varies.

In response, the ECI has emphasised that SIR is a routine purification effort, not a deletion drive. It has assured the Supreme Court that no name will be removed without prior notice, a reasoned order, and appeal rights. The Commission maintains that it is not legally obligated to publish a separate list of excluded voters or reasons for omissions, viewing the draft roll as a provisional document open to corrections.

During ongoing hearings, the apex court has sought details on the 2003 revision’s methodology, signalling a desire for transparency in historical precedents. Notably, while individual voters have filed thousands of objections, no recognized political party has formally flagged errors in the draft, per ECI reports. This absence of partisan complaints underscores that the controversy may stem more from apprehension than widespread malpractice.

The debate extends beyond Bihar, highlighting systemic tensions in India’s electoral framework. Similar revisions in other states, like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in recent years, have faced scrutiny for alleged biases, yet they have ultimately bolstered roll accuracy. The political stakes are high in Bihar: the state’s 243 Assembly seats could see shifts if migrant voters—estimated at over two crore—are underrepresented. Demographic data from the 2011 Census, adjusted for growth, reveals that Scheduled Castes and Muslims, often economically vulnerable, form significant voter blocs; any perceived exclusion could erode trust in the system.

Objectively, the ECI’s actions align with global best practices for electoral hygiene. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom periodically purge rolls to combat fraud, though with safeguards against voter suppression.

In India, the ECI’s recent delisting of 334 Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs) as part of broader clean-up efforts reflects a proactive stance against electoral malpractices. However, implementation on the ground matters. House-to-house surveys, while thorough, can be susceptible to human error or bias in a polarized environment. Enhancing digital tools, such as the Voter Helpline app, could mitigate this, allowing self-verification and reducing dependency on enumerators.

The Supreme Court’s observations in related matters offer valuable guidance. In the ADR vs. ECI case on electronic voting machines, the court cautioned against “blind distrust” that breeds scepticism, urging evidence-based reforms and trust-building through dialogue and transparency. As echoed in Paragraph 37 of that judgment, democracy thrives on harmony among citizens, judiciary, representatives, and electoral bodies. Para 38 expresses hope that the system will reflect the electorate’s true mandate. These principles apply aptly here: while the ECI’s authority to decide the timing and mode of SIR is exclusive, fostering public confidence requires proactive disclosure and inclusive outreach.

Bihar’s SIR embodies the delicate balance between electoral purity and inclusivity. Legally sound and procedurally robust, it addresses long-standing flaws in voter lists, yet its success hinges on equitable execution. As petitions unfold in the Supreme Court, stakeholders must prioritize evidence over rhetoric. A transparent, participatory process will not only fortify Bihar’s upcoming polls but also reinforce India’s democratic resilience. By embracing continuous improvement, as the apex court advocates, we can ensure every eligible voice is heard, unmarred by doubt or exclusion.

(The writer is a senior Advocate)