ECI’s Roll Revision: A Legal Overreach
Written by Kritagya Sinha & Gaurav Kumar Mandal senior member at KS- NUSRL & Student Convenor at KS-NUSRL. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has invoked Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of People Act to undertake a “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s rolls ahead of the October 2025 polls. Citing a 22-year gap since the last intensive revision (2003), the ECI claims the exercise will “scrupulously” include all eligible citizens and remove ineligible ones under Article 326 (adult suffrage). In practice, however, the SIR imposes stringent documentary tests. Voters already on the 2003 roll (about 63%) need only submit a simple form, but the remaining 37%, roughly 2.9 crore people, must provide detailed proof of their date and place of birth (and even their parents’ birth details, depending on age). The ECI’s own “indicative” list of 11 acceptable documents includes only formal Indian-issued papers (birth certificate, old government ID, passport, etc.), and notably excludes ubiquitous IDs like Aadhaar, voter ID (EPIC) or ration cards. EC notices even warn that “Aadhaar is proof of identity, not of citizenship”. This means many ordinary voters scramble for rarely-issued certificates. Field reports from Bihar’s villages are stark, labourers and migrants clutch their Aadhaar and ration cards only to learn “none of the three documents” count as proof of citizenship. Block-level officers report that most constituents are on the 2003 list and sail through, but the few who are not often landless, poor or from marginalized communities,“don’t have any of the acceptable documents”, and are being hurried to obtain caste or residence certificates on short notice. Demanding decades-old certificates from millions of voters is a “draconian” shift that risks taking away the only right crores of people have, the right to vote. Indeed, a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) argues that nearly 3 crore Bihar voters (close to half the electorate) lack the mandated papers and could be purged from the rolls. With historically low birth-registration in Bihar and many rural poor never issued formal IDs, the “onus” of proving citizenship has effectively shifted onto voters who may simply have no documents. The revision disproportionately endangers the poor, migrants and minorities. Farmers, daily-wage labourers and migrant workers (a large share of Bihar’s population) may lack fixed addresses or birth certificate. Seasonal migrants working outside Bihar are particularly vulnerable, as they must rely on online forms or proxies while monsoon rains and short deadlines loom. This downright anti-poor move”, even that excluded voters could lose not only their franchise but also eligibility for government benefits tied to voter registration. Smaller communities -Dalits, Muslims and other minorities. The SIR breaches core constitutional guarantees. The ADR petition contends that subjecting voters (and even their parents) to such arbitrary proof requirements violates Article 326 (universal adult franchise) and Article 325 (no discrimination in electoral rolls by religion, race, caste or gender). It also impugns Articles 14, 19 and 21 (equality, liberty and life) by shifting the burden of proof from the state to individuals and by denying due process. elections are meant to be inclusive, Article 326 entitles every person over 18 to vote, and that disqualifications must follow clear law, not sudden, overreaching directives. The petitions warn that forced exclusions on flimsy grounds can “arbitrarily…disenfranchise lakhs” of citizens. and undermine India’s commitment to universal suffrage. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself expressed concern on July 10 that real voters could lose their franchise if they cannot meet these new criteria or complete appeals in time. In my view, the ECI’s process has been marked by a troubling lack of transparency and undue haste. The entire SIR spans barely three months: Block-level enumeration must finish by July 25, objections sorted by August, and a final roll published on September 30, all in a heavy monsoon period. such a task normally requires much more lead time, public consultation and clarity of purpose. The ADR notes that no satisfactory reason was given for “drastic” mass revision just before elections indeed, a special summary update had just been held in late 2024.Unlike past exercises (such as in 2003), there was no advance debate with political parties or civil society, the June 24 notification seemingly came with zero warning, sowing confusion on the ground. the ECI was designed to be an independent bulwark against executive overreach, moves that appear politically motivated risk turning election administration into a tool of those in power. At stake is nothing less than the integrity of India’s democratic franchise. The commission’s duty is to expand inclusion, not to erect new hurdles for the disadvantaged. The courts and voters alike will be watching closely to ensure that no citizen loses the fundamental right to vote through this unprecedented revision.