At the heart of India’s electoral system stands the Election Commission of India. Described by the Supreme Court as a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ (watchful guardian), it is synonymous with free and fair elections. But now it finds itself in the eye of a storm. In Bihar, where every vote is a contest of caste and conviction, an unprecedented voter roll revision has triggered allegations, anxieties and fundamental questions about the sanctity of the institution.
What was meant to be a routine clean-up of Bihar’s voter rolls has turned into a political slugfest. The Election Commission’s special drive to remove duplicate, fake or deceased names, while adding genuine voters, has sparked a firestorm of charges. The principal opposition parties in the state, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress, allege that the timing and scale of the exercise are no coincidence, warning that possibly lakhs of names in opposition strongholds could be wiped off overnight. The ruling NDA insists it is business as usual, citing the Representation of the People Act and the need for accurate rolls ahead of the upcoming assembly elections.
Bihar’s heated roll revision strikes at the very promise enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution: the guarantee of universal adult suffrage. This article affirms that every Indian citizen above 18 has the right to vote unless disqualified by law on clearly defined grounds.
Now, with the issue before the Supreme Court, petitioners are asking for a freeze or at least tight oversight of the revision. They argue that once names are removed, reinstating them is a bureaucratic nightmare. On July 10, Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Election Commission’s timing and criticised the exclusion of Aadhaar, voter ID and ration cards from the list of 11 valid documents for verification. The court stressed that these widely used IDs should be considered by the poll panel, especially in rural Bihar, where poverty and illiteracy hinder access to formal documentation.
The Election Commission defends the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) as a participative exercise, with 80 per cent of door-to-door verification completed by 77,895 Booth Level Officers (BLOs). However, petitioners argue that the current rules violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 326, and that the Election Commission lacks the authority to determine citizenship. The court has halted the publication of the draft rolls and scheduled the next hearing for July 28, directing the Election Commission to respond by July 21. The outcome could redefine electoral roll revisions across the country. If the court mandates broader document acceptance, it could ease voter access but challenge the Election Commission’s current framework.
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has warned that such large-scale revisions close to elections risk undermining the spirit of Article 326. “Any exercise that deletes genuine voters just before an election strikes at the very heart of democracy. The voter list is not a tool to tilt the field but a foundation for free and fair polls,” he said. While acknowledging the need to clean up rolls, Sibal stressed that the process must be transparent and consensus-driven.
An outdated or error-ridden voter roll can distort outcomes. Under normal circumstances, the Election Commission revises rolls annually and conducts special summary revisions in states facing elections. BLOs are deployed to verify households, deaths are cross-checked with municipal records and new voters aged 18–19 are encouraged to enrol.
In Bihar, a special revision drive was launched in early 2024 ahead of the general election. But the second round, now underway, is broader in scope, targeting suspected duplicate entries and alleged migrants. Critics claim the process disproportionately affects certain castes and communities, fuelling fears of disenfranchisement.
Trust, but verify: Election officials from Nawada district with voters during the revision process | PTI
The controversy erupted when opposition leaders, including RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav, alleged that BLOs were marking thousands of names as ‘doubtful’ without proper field checks, reportedly acting on instructions from district election officers. The RJD and the Congress argue that the drive hits hardest the poor, marginalised and minority communities who often lack formal paperwork. Many live in rented homes or follow seasonal migration cycles, making verification difficult.
The Election Commission has denied any political intent. “Identification of duplicate, dead or shifted electors is a continuous process under the Registration of Electors Rules,” it said, insisting that the process was based on a transparent methodology involving door-to-door verification, Aadhaar linkage (where voluntarily provided), cross-checks with civil records and field reports. A senior Election Commission official, speaking off the record, said: “If someone’s name is genuinely flagged as duplicate or shifted, they can file claims and objections. The final roll will include them if they meet the eligibility norms.” The Election Commission has directed district officers to ensure that BLOs do not harass or intimidate voters, and that outreach camps are being organised to help people submit documents.
Yet, the opposition remains unconvinced. One major flashpoint is the growing use of Aadhaar for deduplication. While the Election Commission maintains that linking Aadhaar with voter IDs is voluntary, local officials often demand it, despite the Supreme Court’s restrictions on Aadhaar’s use for authentication.
This is not the first time such concerns have emerged. In Telangana in 2018, lakhs of voters were reportedly removed from rolls following a flawed purge involving Aadhaar. Many discovered this only when they turned up at booths and were turned away.
Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat told THE WEEK that the timing of Bihar’s roll revision was “far from ideal”. “This is happening too close to the elections, and naturally it creates doubts in the minds of people and political parties,” he said. Rawat explained that while summary revisions just before polls are common, intensive exercises like this should ideally be carried out a year or two in advance.
He added that the Election Commission should have first taken political parties into confidence. “Proper consultation would have cleared suspicion and put people’s doubts to rest,” he said. On the issue of valid documents, Rawat said proving citizenship was straightforward if voters could show a clear link to their parents. “Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship. It only establishes residence and date of birth,” he said, countering common misconceptions.
The Election Commission has promised a robust grievance redressal mechanism. Claims and objections can be filed until the final roll is published. But critics point out that many rural voters do not know how to file these forms or lack the resources to visit block offices repeatedly.
Over the decades, the Election Commission has won global praise for conducting massive elections with professionalism. From the electronic voting machines to the indelible ink to the model code of conduct, its innovations have bolstered Indian democracy. But in recent years, it has faced criticism for alleged bias towards the ruling establishment, including delayed action on hate speech and controversial timing of official actions.
The Bihar roll revision could shape the upcoming polls in ways that go beyond numbers. If people find their names missing at the last minute, it could spark protests and erode faith in the system—something Indian democracy can ill afford.