Context

• What does it mean to live in a democracy if one’s name disappears from the electoral roll? In Bihar today, this question carries urgent significance.
• Millions of citizens face an imminent threat of disenfranchisement due to the onerous and arbitrary burdens imposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) through its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
• Announced in June 2025, ahead of the State elections, this exercise has created deep uncertainty regarding the right to vote, a cornerstone of democratic participation. 

The Purpose and Process of Revision and Its Troubling Classifications and Arbitrary Rules

• The Purpose and Process of Revision
  • Periodic updates of electoral rolls are essential to maintaining the integrity of democratic elections.
  • Such revisions ensure that only eligible voters are included, while ineligible names are removed.
  • However, the current SIR in Bihar is being carried out in a manner that is opaque, hurried, and potentially unconstitutional.
  • With the draft electoral roll scheduled for release on August 1, the compressed timeline raises doubts about whether this sweeping revision can adhere to constitutional standards of fairness and legality.
• Troubling Classifications and Arbitrary Rules
  • A major concern lies in the classifications introduced by the ECI.
  • The June 24 notification lists 11 acceptable forms of documentary proof, such as passports and caste certificates, while excluding widely held documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, driving licences, and even the ECI’s own Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC).
  • This omission defies logic and introduces arbitrariness into the process.
  • Furthermore, the SIR differentiates between voters included during the 2003 intensive revision and those added later, requiring the latter to re-establish eligibility with fresh documentation.
  • The ECI has not explained why past inclusions, verified through official processes, now require re-verification.
  • If previous entries were flawed, the responsibility lies with the state, not the voter.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

• The ECI’s authority flows from Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it control over electoral roll preparation, and Article 326, which guarantees adult suffrage for all citizens above 18 years.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, allows for special revisions when necessary.
• However, these powers are not unlimited, they must operate within constitutional boundaries of legality, proportionality, and rights protection.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that free and fair elections form the bedrock of India’s constitutional order.
• While the right to vote is statutory, it is integral to equality and political participation.
• Therefore, any revision process must adhere to standards of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination.
• A system that imposes unreasonable burdens on voters or excludes them based on vague and inconsistent criteria violates these constitutional guarantees.

Tests of Equality and Fairness

• Under Article 14, any state classification must meet two conditions: an intelligible differentia distinguishing one group from another and a rational nexus with the objective sought.
• The SIR fails this test on two counts:
  • The division between pre-2003 and post-2003 voters, lacks a clear connection to electoral integrity.
  • The arbitrary exclusion of EPIC cards while accepting school certificates defies reason and fairness.
• If names are omitted from the August 1 draft roll, affected voters will have only 30 days to submit additional documents, a burden that will fall hardest on the poor and marginalised, many of whom may not even be aware of their deletion.

Judicial Scrutiny and Urgent Action

• On July 10, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the exclusion of commonly held identity documents and urged the ECI to consider Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards.
• However, ambiguity in the Court’s language leaves uncertainty about whether these documents must be accepted or merely reviewed.
• This lack of clarity risks creating a fait accompli, with voters scrambling after the damage is done.
• The Court must act swiftly to preserve the status quo and ensure the revision does not become irreversible.
• Given that the issues are primarily legal and documentary, an expedited final hearing is essential. 

Conclusion

• The SIR in Bihar exemplifies how technical exercises can have profound democratic consequences.
• The ECI’s approach, marked by opacity, arbitrary classifications, and disproportionate burdens, risks disenfranchising the very citizens democracy exists to empower.
• The Supreme Court must act decisively to reaffirm that in India’s constitutional order, the right to vote is not a privilege hedged by bureaucratic hurdles but a fundamental democratic guarantee rooted in equality and fairness.