Voter Rights on Trial: EC’s Bihar Exercise Sparks Fears of Mass Disenfranchisement

In a case that could redefine the contours of electoral democracy in India, the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a powerful rejoinder in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional and procedural legitimacy of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The exercise, which has already flagged 56 lakh voters for deletion, is scheduled for hearing before the apex court on 28 July. At the heart of the legal battle lies a deeper anxiety—whether an administrative exercise, ostensibly aimed at cleansing the voter list, may end up excluding lakhs of eligible citizens, undermining one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy: the right to vote.

The ADR, in its submission, argues that the ECI’s insistence on excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as valid documents for voter verification is both legally untenable and practically absurd. Aadhaar, which is widely accepted across the country as valid proof for passports, caste certificates, and residence status, is mysteriously considered unreliable for electoral verification by the ECI. This exclusion is even more questionable when juxtaposed with the fact that the ECI has accepted 11 other documents, most of which, as ADR rightly points out, are equally susceptible to forgery or misrepresentation. This selective rejection not only lacks logic but also invites the risk of arbitrary enforcement and selective acceptance, especially in politically sensitive and demographically diverse regions such as Bihar.

The concern intensifies in the context of the timeline. The revision process, being conducted just months before the 2025 Assembly elections, is accused of being needlessly rushed. The three-month verification window has placed lakhs of voters at risk—especially those who do not possess acceptable documentation or who may have failed to submit their forms due to lack of access, awareness, or interaction with the Block Level Officers (BLOs). According to the EC’s own data, 15 lakh individuals have failed to return the voter verification forms, which could lead to their exclusion. Ground-level reports cited by ADR suggest procedural violations by BLOs, including submitting forms online without ever physically visiting the voters or collecting signatures. Even more troubling are reports of forms being submitted in the name of deceased individuals.

What emerges is a grim picture of a process marked by confusion, opacity, and the absence of standard operating protocols. ADR notes that BLOs were mandated by the EC’s June 24 guidelines to visit each residence and deliver two verification forms per voter. However, anecdotal accounts and field reports reveal that this step was either skipped or done perfunctorily. Many voters allegedly never saw a BLO, and yet their forms were uploaded, sometimes with incorrect or fabricated information. This lack of transparency and procedural integrity has grave consequences, not just for individual voters but for the democratic process as a whole.

The legal core of ADR’s argument hinges on the principle that being on the electoral roll is, as per past Supreme Court rulings, prima facie proof of Indian citizenship. In Inderjit Barua vs Election Commission (1985), the Court had held that names already listed on the voter roll carry a presumption of citizenship and the burden of disproving it lies with the objector. Similarly, in Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), the Court reiterated that the burden of proving citizenship lies on new applicants, not existing voters. The ECI’s current approach appears to disregard these precedents by treating existing voters with suspicion and burdening them with re-verification without sufficient cause or due process.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the SIR exercise is its potential demographic impact. ADR argues that the deletion of migrated electors could have disproportionate electoral consequences, especially if these voters are concentrated in specific constituencies or belong to particular communities. Given Bihar’s complex social fabric and history of caste- and community-based voting patterns, even a small numerical tilt can produce politically seismic outcomes. It is precisely this potential for misuse that makes arbitrary and discretionary powers in the hands of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) so dangerous. ADR warns that the absence of a well-defined procedure for scrutinizing verification forms allows EROs to act with near-total discretion—discretion that is unaccountable, opaque, and susceptible to political influence.

The Election Commission, in its defence, has claimed that Aadhaar and ration cards were excluded due to the possibility of fraud in obtaining them. But this reasoning cuts both ways. The ADR rightly points out that most documents, including those currently accepted by the ECI, can be fraudulently obtained. The answer lies not in rejecting widely held IDs but in creating a robust verification protocol that ensures integrity while preserving inclusivity. The lack of such a protocol in the current revision process, coupled with the EC’s blanket authority to revise procedures outside the framework of the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, renders the entire exercise vulnerable to legal and ethical challenge.

Even more disconcerting is the EC’s failure to provide any substantive data justifying this revision. No compelling evidence has been presented of widespread infiltration by illegal immigrants or foreign nationals in the voter rolls of Bihar—allegations often made in political rhetoric but rarely supported by empirical data. Without such a foundation, the urgency and scale of the SIR exercise seem disproportionate and potentially discriminatory.

At its core, this case is about trust—trust in the institutions meant to safeguard democracy, and trust in the system that allows every citizen, regardless of their background, to exercise their right to vote. The right to vote is not a privilege extended conditionally; it is a constitutional guarantee. Any attempt to narrow its scope or condition its exercise must be scrutinized with utmost care. The Supreme Court’s verdict on this issue will not only decide the fate of 56 lakh voters in Bihar but also set a precedent for future electoral exercises across India. In a democracy, administrative convenience cannot come at the cost of disenfranchisement. The ballot is not merely a slip of paper—it is the voice of the people. And no revision exercise should silence it.