Voter Roll Clean-Up or Rights Risk? The Constitutional Debate Over Bihar’s Electoral Revision

A seemingly administrative decision by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to revise Bihar’s electoral rolls ahead of the 2025 Assembly elections has evolved into a constitutional crossroads. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), ordered to address alleged duplication and inaccuracies, has raised concerns about the exclusion of legitimate voters, especially among marginalised groups. With petitions pending before the Supreme Court, the case underscores a deep and recurring tension in the nation’s electoral democracy, between the ECI’s constitutional mandate and the individual citizen’s right to participate in the electoral process.

Article 324 of the Constitution vests in the ECI the power of “superintendence, direction and control” of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. This power is not merely procedural, but substantive. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Supreme Court held that Article 324 is a reservoir of plenary powers that can be exercised in areas unoccupied by legislation, so long as they are not inconsistent with any law made by Parliament.

In furtherance of this mandate, the ECI operates under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA). Section 21 authorises the Commission to revise electoral rolls “if it thinks fit so to do”, whether by summary or intensive methods. While the law does not explicitly define “Special Intensive Revision”, the Commission has, over time, developed this mechanism as a hybrid of both categories, broader than a summary revision under Section 21(2), but more targeted than a full-scale intensive revision under Section 21(1). Its legal basis lies in Section 21(3), read with Rules 10, 25 and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The ECI has justified the Bihar SIR on grounds of inflated voter rolls, duplicate entries, and outdated data, particularly in urban constituencies. According to officials, field inputs suggested that a routine annual revision would not suffice. The SIR involves house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), publication of draft rolls, and a claims and objections process, which the Commission asserts is being followed rigorously. It also states that no deletion is made without personal notice and verification, in compliance with Rule 18 of the 1960 Rules.

Critically, the ECI has argued that documents such as Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and ration cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. In Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court endorsed this position, noting that Aadhaar is not a citizenship document. This stance also finds support in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), which underscored that the right to vote flows from citizenship, not mere possession of identity documents.

However, petitioners before the Supreme Court, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), allege that the process has been exclusionary and opaque. Nearly 40 lakh voters, they claim, risk deletion for not submitting fresh Form 6, often without being informed that such action was required. Several forms were reportedly uploaded by BLOs without consent, raising questions about procedural propriety. The petitioners argue that this violates Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution by disproportionately affecting marginalised voters without giving them a meaningful chance to respond.

While the right to vote is not a fundamental right, it is a statutory right with constitutional significance. Article 326 guarantees universal adult suffrage, and the Supreme Court has held in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) that the right to participate in free and fair elections is intrinsic to the democratic process. In its 2013 decision in the same case, the Court reiterated that electoral fairness extends to both access and inclusion.

Procedurally, Sections 22 and 23 of the RPA allow voters to correct errors or apply for inclusion, but their effectiveness depends on proper outreach and facilitation. Field reports suggest that many BLOs skipped households, and that verification was hampered by monsoon-related disruptions. Migrant workers, those without regular documents and the digitally excluded have struggled to access redressal mechanisms, leaving them vulnerable to “silent deletions”.

The Supreme Court, over the course of hearing, has raised some pertinent queries -- That whether voters were adequately informed, whether alternate documents could ease the burden of proof, and whether redressal mechanisms were practically accessible. Its role is not to second-guess the ECI’s intent, but to ensure that the method of execution respects constitutional rights.

The ECI, for its part, has argued that such revisions are essential to uphold electoral integrity, and that inaction in the face of flawed rolls would itself undermine free and fair elections. The Commission’s stance finds some grounding in the Court’s own past recognition of its independence and centrality to the democratic process. But as established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), even in matters of data collection or verification, constitutional values of privacy, dignity, and procedural fairness remain non-negotiable.

Ultimately, what is at stake is not just administrative efficiency but constitutional legitimacy – The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will likely clarify the boundaries of the ECI’s discretion under Section 21(3), and the procedural minimums required to protect voter rights in large-scale revisions. It will also signal how our democracy balances its commitment to electoral integrity with the promise universal adult suffrage.

Clean rolls matter, but not at the cost of erasing the voices they are meant to record.

Electoral legitimacy arises not from numbers alone, but from the fairness of how those numbers are reached.