TMC’s Mahua Moitra Challenges ECI’s Bihar Voter List Purge: Electoral Reform or NRC Redux?
Besi matdan, swachh sarkar; pehle matdan, phir aur kaam” — this catchy slogan from the Election Commission of India (ECI) is supposed to inspire greater electoral participation, promote clean governance, and link voting to national progress. However, recent developments have prompted serious questions about whether the actions of the ECI are actually undermining the very spirit of this motto.
Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission’s decision to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar. Her core allegation: the process being followed is arbitrary, exclusionary, and eerily reminiscent of the controversial NRC (National Register of Citizens) exercise in Assam. She argues that this revision — conducted outside the usual schedule and with insufficient safeguards — could disenfranchise thousands, particularly the poor, minorities, and migrant laborers.
Let’s unpack the arguments, analyze the underlying issues, and assess whether there is merit to the growing concern that voter roll revisions are becoming a backdoor to voter suppression, if not an NRC-lite.
The ECI recently announced a targeted, off-cycle revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, citing the need for “purification” of the voter list. Ostensibly, this is aimed at removing duplicate, deceased, and “bogus” voters. While this may sound reasonable in theory, the devil lies in the implementation.
According to multiple reports, booth-level officers (BLOs) have been tasked with verifying voter credentials door-to-door in specific districts, many of them with high concentrations of minority and migrant populations. Critics allege that people are being asked to produce legacy documents, birth records, proof of residence, and even parental details — documentation that many working-class or rural citizens may not possess or may struggle to retrieve due to migration or illiteracy.
In effect, the voter becomes guilty until proven innocent. And much like the NRC in Assam, the burden of proof is being shifted entirely onto citizens, often without proper communication, legal recourse, or transparency.
Mahua Moitra's petition warns that the Bihar exercise could be a “dry run” for a wider national campaign of disenfranchisement. She draws parallels to Assam's NRC, which led to over 19 lakh people being excluded from the citizenship register — many of whom were later proven to be legitimate citizens. The chaos, trauma, and legal uncertainty of that process continue to this day.
In her plea, Moitra raises the following points:
• Lack of Legislative Backing: There is no recent act of Parliament or legislative direction for a targeted voter roll revision in Bihar at this time. The ECI is conducting an extraordinary revision without the usual legal safeguards.
• Violation of Due Process: Citizens are reportedly being removed from rolls without notice, and without an opportunity to appeal or present documents adequately.
• Selective Targeting: Districts with higher proportions of minority voters and internal migrants have seen more aggressive verification campaigns.
• National Implications: If this becomes a precedent, similar revisions could be initiated in other states — particularly West Bengal, where voter identity politics is already highly volatile.
________________________________________
The Slogan vs. The Strategy
“Besi Matdan, Swachh Sarkar” — or “More Voting, Better Governance” — is one of the central slogans used by the Election Commission to encourage citizen participation. Similarly, “Pehle Matdan, Phir Aur Kaam” — “First vote, then all else” — emphasizes voting as a civic duty before any personal or professional commitment.
But the irony here is jarring.
If a significant portion of the population is being arbitrarily removed from the voter list or made to prove their identity under opaque and ad hoc procedures, then how is the goal of “more voting” being upheld? On the contrary, such a process could suppress turnout, especially among vulnerable communities.
Field reports from NGOs and voter advocacy groups in Bihar suggest that people — especially daily wage workers and migrants — are either unaware of the process or afraid of engaging with it due to confusion and fear of bureaucratic harassment.
Many fear that any discrepancy in documents might lead not only to loss of voting rights but potential targeting under citizenship laws in the future.
In that context, the slogans begin to look less like calls to empowerment and more like tools of deflection.
While the Election Commission has denied any connection between the Bihar roll revision and the NRC, many civil society observers are unconvinced. The method being used — door-to-door verification, reliance on old or difficult-to-obtain documents, opaque removal procedures — mirrors NRC mechanisms almost exactly.
Moreover, the political backdrop adds fuel to the fire. The BJP-led central government has previously made its intentions clear about implementing NRC-like mechanisms across India, and even linked them to the controversial CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act). While the official line remains muted post-2020 due to backlash, efforts like these voter roll “cleansing drives” are increasingly viewed as alternate ways to achieve similar outcomes: define who is a "legitimate" citizen, and exclude those who don't pass a vaguely defined test.
The timing also raises questions: why now, and why only in select districts? And more importantly, why is there no broad public communication, no grievance redressal mechanism, and no guarantee that wrongful deletions will be reversed before the next election?
Democracy rests not just on elections, but on the right to participate in them. Voter roll revisions are not inherently undemocratic — they are necessary to ensure clean lists. But when such revisions are conducted without transparency, due process, or accountability — and disproportionately affect the poorest, weakest, or most mobile sections of society — they become tools of exclusion.
Mahua Moitra’s petition is not just a political move; it is a timely reminder that the road to authoritarianism is often paved with procedural justifications. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to draw a constitutional red line: that the right to vote cannot be quietly trimmed in the name of administrative efficiency.
If India truly believes in "Besi Matdan," it must first ensure that every citizen who wants to vote, can vote — without fear, friction, or false filters.
