This piece of article is authored By:Aziz Umar
2nd year B.A. LLB student at Faculty of law Jamia Millia Islamia University New Delhi.
Introduction:
To conduct free and fair elections and maintain transparency in the electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (“ECI”) is constitutionally authorized to revise the electoral rolls to ensure the inclusion of eligible voters and deletion of disqualified individuals under exceptional circumstances. This power conferred statutory authority must be subjected to test of reasonableness and principle of natural justice.
The ECI’s recent decision on June 24, 2025, to conduct Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”) pertaining to revision of electoral roll in Bihar claiming to exercise such authority from Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act,1950 (“RPA Act”) has caused constitutional controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that this exercise, demanding onerous documentation in an unreasonably short timeline can shift heavy burden on huge illiterate and marginalized population rendering the whole exercise arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, thereby required immediate modification to safeguard the principle of free and fair election, which is the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution.
Section 21(3) of RPA Act empowers ECI to order Special Revision of any constituency or part thereof, either in the form of summary, Intensive or mixed revision, in compliance with Rule 25 of Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 (“RE Rules”). Further, Rule 21(A) of RE Rules mandated ECI to strictly comply with the principle of Natural Justice and Due Process before deleting any name from the Electoral Roll. However, present exercise seems to compromise these safeguards by ignoring procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard.
Excluding fundamental IDs led to mass disenfranchisement:
The SIR demands verification through a very narrow and vaguely defined list of documents for examining the voter’s eligibility, but arbitrarily excludes the common identification documents like Aadhar, PAN and Ration card from the list of accepted documents.
Bihar, being a State having historically poor in documentation infrastructure, where over 87% of the population possess Aadhar. Yet the list of valid documents under SIR includes only Government-issued identity cards, Birth certificates, Passports, and Matriculation certificates, among others. Notably, only 2.4% of the Bihar population possess a passport, and similar are the rates with other accepted documents.
This drive, by excluding foundational documents like Aadhaar, EPIC, PAN and Ration Card, offers a very limited list of the accepted documents. Moreover, the announcement of SIR, which aims to revise the record of the approximately list of 7 Crores voters, was made just a few months before the Bihar legislative elections. According to several reports, this hasty exercise disenfranchises around 66 Lakh voters, putting them at risk of being disqualified.This exclusion is clearly contrary to the principle established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court recognized the Aadhar’s legitimacy as a fundamental document while forming the basis for other government-issued documents. The present Drive however by excluding Aadhar from the accepted list of documents may lead huge disenfranchisement.
Inverts of Burden of Proof on Citizens:
The present SIR also inverts the burden of proof from the State to the Citizens, forcing citizens who are already enrolled in the voter list to re-establish their eligibility. Thus, treating all the individuals with suspicion until proven otherwise.
According to Paragraph 5(b) of “Detailed Guidelines”, if the Electoral registration officers are not satisfied with the documents submitted, then they not only delete the individual’s name from the electoral rolls but can also designate the individual as “suspected foreigner.” Such an exercise constitutes an arbitrary exercise of constitutional authority and fails to comply with principle of procedural fairness formulated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1SCC 2448 which obligates the State to satisfy the test of reasonableness in any actions impacting the citizen’s fundamental Rights.
Similarly, in Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100 directed ECI to follow the principle of Natural Justice while deleting the names from the electoral rolls. The present SIR, however, appears to disregard these safeguards.
Administrative Overreach and Constitutional Subversion:
The periodic revision of the Electoral Roll is the constitutional duty of ECI, the primary objective of which should be inclusivity, fairness and transparency rather than exclusion and unnecessary disqualifications of the Eligible voters.
Article 325 of the Indian constitution explicitly mentions that there shall be only one general electoral roll of every territorial constituency, and no individual shall be ineligible for inclusion in such a roll, nor shall discrimination be allowed based on religion, race, caste, sex or any prior background.
The ECI order to conduct SIR for the whole State of Bihar is contrary to Article 325. The Constitution scheme allows such an exercise to be conducted only for single constituencies and not the whole state in a single stroke. Thus, such an exercise without reliance on due procedure amounts to procedural illegality.
The present SIR further adds difficulty for illiterate, elderly and marginalized sections of society by compromising the mandate enshrined under Article 325 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibit any kind of discrimination in providing the voting rights. Furthermore, conducting this exercise just a few months before State legislative elections raises the question among the general mass over ECI’s credibility in conducting free and fair elections, which is the basic structure of the constitution as prescribed in People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1.
Questioning Citizenship – Is Outside the ECIs Jurisdiction:
Article 326 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Universal adult franchise to all the adult citizens of India, subjected only with limited disqualification by law. This exercise not only requires individuals to verify their own citizenship but also the citizenship of one or both parents. However, ECI cannot question the citizenship of any individual as its jurisdiction is just limited to conducting electoral rolls, as said in Lal babu Hussain case (supra), wherein the Central Government ( Ministry of Home Affairs) is the sole competent authority to decide questions of citizenship. Therefore, an action declaring the unqualified voters as “Suspected Foreigners” can amounts to infringement of Article 326.
ECI in their SIR notification mandates that all required documents for citizenship proof including those of their parents, for those who were not in the Bihar 2003 electoral roll. An Enumeration form, which is not mentioned under the RE Rules, was introduced by the ECI, which clearly bypasses the four corners of the statutes. The present exercise fails to recognize the safeguard under Rule 21A of RE Rules, which prohibits any deletion on the ground of being “not an ordinary resident” without providing a reusable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, amounts to a grave violation of natural justice and due process under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
The Apex court directed that ECI cannot override law enacted by the legislature through using its plenary power, but the ECI’s actions on SIR violated the principle ruled in A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 1 SCC 256 Moreover, the ECI’s SIR fails the proportionality test, which is held in K. S. Putta Swamy (supra), that any executive action must be a legitimate aim, rationally nexus and interference through actions must be proportionate to the need, including the least restrictive with regards to fundamental rights.
Indian Democracy must not be Compromised:
The ECI’s intention to clean and upgrade the Electoral roll is its constitutional obligation and should be welcomed. However, the methodology adopted by ECI in conducting SIR raises serious constitutional loopholes. This exercise may trigger huge exclusion of eligible voters through complex documentation requirements, a short timeframe and deletion of common identification documents.
Due to the possible mass exclusion this exercise can threaten and undermine the foundational principle of participatory democracy. In Anoop Barawal v. Union of India (2023) 6 SCC 161 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed ECI to act fearlessly, independently and ensure democratic integrity. The right to adult franchise is the soul spirit of Indian democracy. The present SIR, by disregarding this right and considering it as a privilege, may act as a tool for the mass exclusion of marginalized people of Bihar.
Therefore, ECI must revisit the present SIR to ensure strict compliance with all constitutional and statutory provisions and not include any procedure that may dilute the inclusivity in the Electoral roll. The protection of the Universal Adult franchise must not be made an admirative formality but shall be treated as the backbone of the Indian democracy.
Conclusion:
To reiterate the legislative intent and to ensure a transparent electoral roll, the ECI must not compromise its Constitutional obligations over ordinary people’s Fundamental rights in the guise of administrative expediency or through any form of constitutional overreach. The ECI is not the competent authority to decide questions of citizenship through SIR. Article 324 does not empower the ECI to override statutory safeguards enshrined under the RPA Act and the RE Rules, 1960. SIR cannot be pursued in a manner that results in systematic exclusion, procedural unfairness, and constitutional violation. The Supreme Court should direct ECI, to revisit SIR to meet the constitutional mandates with the mindset of an inclusive electoral roll.