ON JUNE 24, THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA announced a Special Intensive Revision (‘SIR’) of the Electoral Roll (‘ER’) in Bihar, just months ahead of the State Assembly elections. While such revisions are standard electoral procedures, the conditions attached to this one, particularly the requirement to prove citizenship for those not listed in the 2003 voter roll, have triggered anxiety and confusion among millions of voters.The Notification as issued by the EC is to incorporate the names of all eligible citizens in the electoral roll; ensure that no ineligible voter is included in the electoral roll; and to introduce complete transparency in the process. The purported function of the SIR, therefore, seems to facilitate smooth and fair elections in Bihar.When the election is just around the corner (November 2025), should the EC undertake the task? Is it possible to conduct the SIR within a short period of one month (till July 25)? Would the small window of one month give a fair opportunity to the population (a substantial portion of which migrates to other states for work and where the records of death and birth are deeply skewed)? Does the EC have enough cadres to translate the promise with utmost efficiency? All these questions have been addressed by the EC. The response has been deeply contested by the reports coming from the ground, as the exercise continues..Is it possible to conduct the SIR within a short period of one month (till July 25)? Does the EC have enough cadres to translate the promise with utmost efficiency?.Constitutional frameworkThree issues are contested here.i) Citizenship, which is determined in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2019) and conferred by the Central Government (based on an application for citizenship) in accordance with the Citizenship Rules, 2009. ii) Census (defining domicile), which is done to calculate the population across criteria such as age, gender, community, religion, caste, geographical boundaries etc. iii) ER, which determines who amongst the citizens are eligible to vote. The purpose of ER altogether is different. It is neither to impinge upon the citizenship status nor the domicile of the electorate. Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution are important here. Article 324 gives the power to prepare ER to the EC. The power to “prepare” also covers the power to “revise” the ER. Article 326 defines the criteria for adult suffrage and the ground of disqualification as a voter. Section 16 of The Representation of People Act, 1950 (RP Act) provides grounds of disqualification from being included in the ER. Article 326 and Section 16, when read together, establish non-residency and non-citizenship as two major criteria for disqualification from ER.Flawed IntentionThe EC holds the constitutional mandate to conduct the “revision”. The mandate when translated into action must, however, be tested on the grounds of “intention” and “method”. .On the voter list revision in Bihar, has the ECI forgotten its duty?.Does the intention behind the SIR match with the objective highlighted by EC? The EC has categorised verification based on age in the following manner:1. Those born before 1 July 1987 who initially required proof of date and place of birth, can submit an enumeration form with extracts from the 2003 voter roll, available online.2. Those born between 1 July 1987 and 2 December 2004 must provide documents for themselves and one of their parents.3. Those born after 2 December 2004 must provide proof of their date and place of birth and of their parents.The EC has listed 11 acceptable documents to this end. The list includes birth certificate, matriculation certificate, passport, permanent residence certificate and caste certificate, among others.The intention behind SIR will match the objective if the ER only excludes non-citizens (Section 16, RP Act) and non-residents (Article 326). Unfortunately, this is not the case. When documents like Aadhar card and ration card are excluded from the list of identity documents and parents’ identity is made compulsory, the intention does not seem to achieve the objective. Additionally, how is objective served when millions of citizens could potentially be excluded from the list? According to the Guidelines, individuals whose names are not on the 2003 ER must submit documentary proof of citizenship within one month. An estimated 2.93 crore voters, roughly 37 percent of Bihar's electorate, fall into this category..While the SIR applies across Bihar, it is likely to affect Seemanchal, comprising Araria, Katihar, Kishanganj and Purnia, the hardest..Flawed methodThe method of conducting the revision is also questionable. Logically speaking, the electoral roll should embody the method of passing examinations (like high school, graduation etc.) and not competitive examinations (like UPSC and NEET). The purpose of the former is to include while the latter is designed to exclude. Similarly, the ER must be prepared in a manner to include and not exclude people. This can be achieved only when there is a presumption of both citizenship and residency in favour of the electorate. Unfortunately, the method of revision defies this logic by excluding important documents like Aadhar and ration cards.The method is also flawed on a different ground. The EC has given a window of opportunity to persons whose name gets excluded from the ER. This is a problematic stance. The burden is shifted upon the electorate. First, one must prove that she is both an Indian citizen and a domicile of Bihar. Second, if the claim does not substantiate, she must make a representation for inclusion of her name in the ER. Why does the EC problematise the entire situation, allowing such contestations to happen when the election is just around the corner? Why should the electorate bear additional burden to cast its vote; something which must be facilitated by the State to begin with?The particulars of SeemanchalWhile the SIR applies across Bihar, it is likely to affect Seemanchal, comprising Araria, Katihar, Kishanganj and Purnia, the hardest. This border region remains one of the state's most economically and socially marginalised areas. It also has a disproportionately high Muslim population, many of whom reside in rural areas and belong to working-class or landless families engaged in daily wage or agricultural labour.According to the 2021 Census estimates, Kishanganj has the highest Muslim concentration in Bihar (68 percent), followed by Katihar (44 percent), Araria (43 percent), and Purnia (38 percent). These districts also have some of the lowest literacy rates in the state. In 2001, only one-third of the population was illiterate in the region, far below Bihar's average of 47 percent at the time. However, the literacy rate increased to 54 percent in the region against Bihar’s average of 64 percent in 2011, which still counts as low.In these districts there are numerous families in which the current generation is the first to attend formal school. Adults above twenty five years of age are mostly illiterate and have had no interaction with state institutions. In many villages, private madrasas which are not linked to the Bihar Madrasa Board or education systems are the only mode of learning. Consequently, official records, such as school-leaving certificates or matriculation documents, are often missing. What if a significant segment of this population did not have their names on the 2003 roll and lacked educational certificates? How can they now prove their birth details or those of their parents?.‘Will disenfranchise lakhs of voters’: ADR challenges ECI’s Special Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar.Bihar experiences devastating floods almost every year, particularly in the Kosi-Seemanchal region, due to its vulnerable geography and the lack of river embankments. Rivers such as the Kosi and Mahananda often cause floods in the Seemanchal region, submerging agricultural fields, destroying homes, and displacing thousands. In many parts of Seemanchal, especially along the banks of the Mahananda River, constant land erosion due to the absence of embankments forces people into cycles of displacement and rebuilding.Nearly 90 percent of the Seemanchal population lives in rural areas, and many of them are landless. In search of livelihood, many migrate to Punjab and Haryana during the agricultural season to work on farms. These migrants are often away from home for months and cannot afford to return to complete bureaucratic formalities, especially within a 30-day window. Expecting them to access websites, download forms, and upload documents while working on farms in distant states is not only impractical, but also disconnected from the lived realities of rural India.Fear of CAA/NRCThere is a high probability that the revision process goes beyond mere preparation of the ER. The purported National Register of Citizens (‘NRC’) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 are already under challenge before the Supreme Court. The Government has announced undertaking a census soon. The revision, if not done properly would have deep reaching implications, determining both the domicile and the citizenship of the electorates. The timing and nature of this exercise cannot be viewed in isolation from the political rhetoric surrounding Muslims particularly from Seemanchal. The region is home to several Muslim castes, such as Surjapuri, Shershabadi, and Kulhaiya, which have been historically marginalised and often viewed as outsiders. Since the NRC-CAA movement, there have been suspicions about the citizenship of borderland Muslim communities. In both the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, BJP leaders repeatedly raised concerns about illegal immigration in Seemanchal. The logic often cited was high population growth, ignoring that poverty and lack of access to reproductive healthcare are far more explanatory than any conspiracy. Last year Union Minister Giriraj Singh led the Hindu Swabhiman Yatra across Seemanchal, making speeches about so-called “love jihad”, Hindu insecurity, and the need for NRC in the region. He warned that unless the NRC was implemented, Hindus would be forced to flee their homes, as allegedly happened in Kashmir and Bangladesh..These narratives are part of a broader ideological strategy: to delegitimise Muslim votes by portraying entire Muslim communities as illegal immigrants..These narratives are part of a broader ideological strategy: to delegitimise Muslim votes by portraying entire Muslim communities as illegal immigrants. In this light, ER revision does not appear as a neutral administrative update but as a pre-election filtering tool that could disproportionately target a particular group.Magnifying the fearThe ER is understood as an administrative exercise from the perspective of the Constitution. However, as it spans out, the current revision touches upon several substantive issues including that of domicile which will impact the upcoming census and the issue of illegal migration which will filter out non-citizens.We have already seen the fate of the Rohingyas. The understanding that people within the territory could be illegal migrants risks their life and liberty and exposes them to potential deportation. Would similar fate wait for people not included in the ER? The approach of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of illegal migrants has been problematic. In Mohammad Salimullah, the Supreme Court having been briefed about the severity attached to the deportation of Rohingyas to Myanmar, had classified it as a non-issue. In a more recent hearing, where Court’s intervention was sought on real instances of the illegal deportation of Rohingyas, the Supreme Court termed the story as merely a bunch of “fanciful ideas”. The Rohingya case might seem too far-fetched in the context of SIR. However, it is important to understand that both intersect deeply in our understanding of citizenship and illegal migration, especially from the perspective of Muslim population living in border areas. .The dispossession of Muslim identity in India.The SIR has been challenged before the Supreme Court by the Association for Democratic Reforms, among others. The division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi is currently hearing the case. It is hoped that the bench will remain conscious of the ground realities while settling the issue.
