A Case Against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar: A Critical Examination of ECI’s Provisional Figures
The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, launched on June 24, 2025, has been presented as a necessary step to ensure a clean and accurate voter list for the upcoming state assembly elections. However, the provisional figures released by the ECI in the closing days of the exercise—claiming 22 lakh deceased voters, 7 lakh duplicate voters, 31.5 lakh permanently shifted voters, and 1 lakh untraceable voters—raise serious concerns about the process’s credibility, transparency, and potential to disenfranchise millions, thereby tilting electoral outcomes. The SIR is a flawed, exclusionary, and potentially manipulative exercise, proved by the ECI’s own figures to highlight its impracticality, discriminatory impact, and questionable intent as will be argued below:
1. Implausible Scale of Provisional Figures Undermines Credibility
The ECI’s provisional figures, reported in late July 2025, claim that out of Bihar’s 7.9 crore registered voters, 22 lakh (2.78%) are deceased, 7 lakh (0.89%) are duplicates, 31.5 lakh (3.99%) have permanently shifted, and 1 lakh (0.13%) are untraceable, totaling over 61 lakh voters (7.72%) marked for potential exclusion. These numbers are staggering and implausible, given that a robust electoral roll update was completed as recently as January 2025, with officials actively maintaining it until June. The sudden identification of such a massive number of discrepancies in a short span—within a month-long exercise during Bihar’s monsoon season—strains credulity and suggests either gross mismanagement in prior updates or inflated figures to justify the SIR’s necessity.
The ECI’s claim of identifying 22 lakh deceased voters is particularly questionable. Assuming an annual crude death rate of approximately 6.5 per 1,000 (based on India’s Sample Registration System, 2022), Bihar’s electorate would expect around 5.13 lakh deaths over a decade. Even accounting for underreported deaths, the jump to 22 lakh deceased voters in a single revision defies statistical reason, especially without transparent methodology or evidence. Similarly, the claim of 31.5 lakh permanently shifted voters ignores Bihar’s migration patterns, where temporary labor migration is common, but permanent relocation is less so, as per the 2011 Census. The 1 lakh “untraceable” voters further raise red flags, as the ECI provides no clear criteria for this category, risking arbitrary deletions. These figures, if acted upon, could exclude nearly 8% of Bihar’s electorate, a scale significant enough to alter election results, particularly in closely contested constituencies.
2. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities
The SIR’s provisional figures disproportionately threaten marginalized groups, including Dalits, backward classes, minorities, and migrant workers, who form a significant portion of Bihar’s electorate. The requirement for documentary proof, such as birth certificates or domicile certificates, excludes widely accepted identifiers like Aadhaar, voter IDs, or ration cards, which are more accessible to the poor. A Bharat Jodo Abhiyan survey indicated that 37% of Bihar’s residents lack the required documents, with Dalits and landless households (65.58% of rural Bihar, per the 2011 Census) particularly affected. The ECI’s figures suggest that the 31.5 lakh “shifted” voters and 1 lakh “untraceable” voters may include migrant laborers who temporarily relocate for work but maintain Bihar residency. This misclassification risks disenfranchising a politically significant group, as migrant workers often vote in their home constituencies.
Opposition leaders, including Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Manoj Jha and Congress’s Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, have labeled the SIR a “conspiracy” to suppress votes from specific communities, alleging it targets opposition strongholds like Seemanchal. The 7 lakh duplicate voters identified by the ECI could also reflect errors in voter list management rather than intentional fraud, yet the blanket removal of these names without individual verification violates due process and risks excluding legitimate voters. The Supreme Court’s concern over the exclusion of Aadhaar and voter IDs as valid documents underscores the discriminatory potential of these requirements, particularly for Bihar’s socio-economically disadvantaged population.
3. Questionable Timing and Lack of Transparency
The SIR’s compressed timeline—launched in June 2025, with draft rolls due by August 1 and final rolls by September 30—coincides with Bihar’s monsoon and flooding season, hindering effective door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The ECI’s claim of 99.8% voter coverage, with 7.23 crore forms digitized, is dubious given the logistical challenges and the fact that 20,000 of the 1 lakh BLOs were yet to be employed as of early July. The sudden shift from a “robust” January 2025 voter list to a complete overhaul, as reported by The Reporters’ Collective, suggests a lack of coherence and raises questions about the ECI’s motives.
Moreover, the ECI’s provisional figures have been inconsistent. On July 14, the ECI reported 12.55 lakh deceased and 35.69 lakh total missing voters, which jumped to 18.66 lakh deceased and 52.3 lakh missing by July 22, and finally to 22 lakh deceased and 61 lakh total by July 24. This rapid escalation, without clear explanation, undermines the process’s credibility. Yogendra Yadav, a psephologist, described the SIR as a “Tughlaqi firmaan” (arbitrary decree), noting that the process lacks transparency and public awareness, with many voters unaware of the need to submit forms. The ECI’s claim of sharing lists with political parties for verification is disputed by opposition leaders, who report receiving no such lists, further eroding trust.
4. Potential to Tilt Electoral Outcomes
The scale of the ECI’s provisional figures—potentially excluding over 61 lakh voters—has profound implications for Bihar’s elections. With 243 assembly seats, an average of 25,000 voters per constituency could be removed, enough to swing results in tight races. In the 2020 Bihar elections, 15 seats were decided by margins under 5,000 votes, and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won by a slim 12-seat majority. The exclusion of 7-8% of the electorate, particularly from opposition-leaning marginalized groups, could disproportionately benefit the ruling NDA, as alleged by leaders like Rahul Gandhi. The ECI’s insistence on removing “ineligible” voters, including the 22 lakh deceased and 1 lakh untraceable, without robust verification, risks systematic disenfranchisement that could manipulate electoral outcomes.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the SIR, with petitions from groups like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), highlights concerns over violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of expression), and 21 (right to life, including the right to vote). The ECI’s defense that it must exclude deceased and shifted voters to comply with the Constitution (Article 326) ignores the lack of due process in identifying these categories, as mandated by precedents like D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987).
5. Violation of Democratic Principles
The SIR’s reliance on inflated and questionable figures undermines the democratic principle of universal suffrage. The ECI’s Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, argued that allowing “dead and migrated” voters on the rolls is unconstitutional, yet the scale of deletions—equivalent to entire constituencies—without transparent evidence risks a greater constitutional violation: denying eligible citizens their right to vote. The absence of prior consultation with stakeholders, as criticized by ADR, and the hurried implementation during adverse conditions violate principles of natural justice. Former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has emphasized that the ECI’s role is to facilitate voting, not erect barriers, yet the SIR’s figures suggest a deliberate effort to shrink the electorate.
Further the on the ground reports by journalists like Ajit Anjum (which have not been satisfactorily explianed by the ECI), have exposed the cursory and casual manner in which the BLOs are approaching this exercise requiring to be handled in sacred way. For the integrity of our democratic foundation, it is mandatory that the electorate should not be excluded or included summarily.
Cogent points—it’s better to be approximately correct than to be precisely wrong.
Let’s wait for the final figures— and the Supreme Court verdict.
In any case, it appears that the dead voters had not been eliminated over the past decades. If any of them is alive, all they need to do is to file their claim.
Agreed. But too early and too keen to congratulate the ECI which has not come clean so often. In my humble understanding of this process so far and the conduct of ECI over the last decade, they have no reason to celebrate.
In the Hon’ble Supreme Court today: ((From Facebook page of Sardar Pritam Singh))
Here is a summary of today’s orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition challenging the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls:
1. Court Assurance for Early Hearing: The Supreme Court, led by Justice Surya Kant, assured the petitioners that their matters would be heard at the earliest, with a directive to lawyers to submit tentative times required for arguments the following day. This ensures the petitioners’ concerns will be addressed prompt
2. Court’s Openness to Scrutinize the Process: Justice Kant noted that the draft electoral list is not final, and the Court could ultimately strike down the entire SIR process if any illegality is found. This provides the petitioners with a potential avenue for legal recourse if the process is deemed unlawful.
3. Judicial Emphasis on Inclusion: The Supreme Court, through Justice Kant, verbally urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to prioritize “en masse inclusion” over “en masse exclusion” of voters. This aligns with the petitioners’ concerns about preventing widespread disenfranchisement, particularly of marginalized groups like Muslims, Dalits, and poor migrants.
4. Advocacy for Statutory Documents: The Court verbally directed the ECI to consider statutory documents like Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) for voter inclusion, reinforcing the petitioners’ argument that these widely available documents should be accepted, as they were in the 2024 General Elections.
5. Judicial Recognition of Document Presumption: Justice Kant emphasized a “presumption of correctness” for official documents like Aadhaar and EPIC, suggesting that forgery concerns should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than leading to blanket exclusions. This supports the petitioners’ contention against the ECI’s exclusion of these documents.
6. Prior Judicial Concerns Acknowledged: On July 10, a vacation bench had raised concerns about the ECI’s legal authority to seek proof of citizenship and the short notice given to voters to furnish documents. This earlier judicial skepticism aligns with the petitioners’ challenge to the ECI’s authority and the practicality of the SIR process.
7. Recognition of Democratic Importance: The Court, on July 10, noted that the petitions raised a critical issue concerning the “right to vote,” which goes to the root of democracy. This acknowledgment validates the petitioners’ stance on protecting voters’ fundamental rights.
8. ECI’s Submission on Illustrative Document List: The Court recorded the ECI’s submission that the list of 11 documents specified for proving citizenship was illustrative, not exhaustive. This offers the petitioners potential flexibility in advocating for additional documents like Aadhaar and ration cards.
These points reflect the Court’s responsiveness to the petitioners’ concerns, its emphasis on voter inclusion, and its willingness to scrutinize the ECI’s process, all of which are favorable to the petitioners’ position against the SIR’s potential to disenfranchise voters.
A Case Against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar: A Critical Examination of ECI’s Provisional Figures
The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, launched on June 24, 2025, has been presented as a necessary step to ensure a clean and accurate voter list for the upcoming state assembly elections. However, the provisional figures released by the ECI in the closing days of the exercise—claiming 22 lakh deceased voters, 7 lakh duplicate voters, 31.5 lakh permanently shifted voters, and 1 lakh untraceable voters—raise serious concerns about the process’s credibility, transparency, and potential to disenfranchise millions, thereby tilting electoral outcomes. The SIR is a flawed, exclusionary, and potentially manipulative exercise, proved by the ECI’s own figures to highlight its impracticality, discriminatory impact, and questionable intent as will be argued below:
1. Implausible Scale of Provisional Figures Undermines Credibility
The ECI’s provisional figures, reported in late July 2025, claim that out of Bihar’s 7.9 crore registered voters, 22 lakh (2.78%) are deceased, 7 lakh (0.89%) are duplicates, 31.5 lakh (3.99%) have permanently shifted, and 1 lakh (0.13%) are untraceable, totaling over 61 lakh voters (7.72%) marked for potential exclusion. These numbers are staggering and implausible, given that a robust electoral roll update was completed as recently as January 2025, with officials actively maintaining it until June. The sudden identification of such a massive number of discrepancies in a short span—within a month-long exercise during Bihar’s monsoon season—strains credulity and suggests either gross mismanagement in prior updates or inflated figures to justify the SIR’s necessity.
The ECI’s claim of identifying 22 lakh deceased voters is particularly questionable. Assuming an annual crude death rate of approximately 6.5 per 1,000 (based on India’s Sample Registration System, 2022), Bihar’s electorate would expect around 5.13 lakh deaths over a decade. Even accounting for underreported deaths, the jump to 22 lakh deceased voters in a single revision defies statistical reason, especially without transparent methodology or evidence. Similarly, the claim of 31.5 lakh permanently shifted voters ignores Bihar’s migration patterns, where temporary labor migration is common, but permanent relocation is less so, as per the 2011 Census. The 1 lakh “untraceable” voters further raise red flags, as the ECI provides no clear criteria for this category, risking arbitrary deletions. These figures, if acted upon, could exclude nearly 8% of Bihar’s electorate, a scale significant enough to alter election results, particularly in closely contested constituencies.
2. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities
The SIR’s provisional figures disproportionately threaten marginalized groups, including Dalits, backward classes, minorities, and migrant workers, who form a significant portion of Bihar’s electorate. The requirement for documentary proof, such as birth certificates or domicile certificates, excludes widely accepted identifiers like Aadhaar, voter IDs, or ration cards, which are more accessible to the poor. A Bharat Jodo Abhiyan survey indicated that 37% of Bihar’s residents lack the required documents, with Dalits and landless households (65.58% of rural Bihar, per the 2011 Census) particularly affected. The ECI’s figures suggest that the 31.5 lakh “shifted” voters and 1 lakh “untraceable” voters may include migrant laborers who temporarily relocate for work but maintain Bihar residency. This misclassification risks disenfranchising a politically significant group, as migrant workers often vote in their home constituencies.
Opposition leaders, including Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Manoj Jha and Congress’s Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, have labeled the SIR a “conspiracy” to suppress votes from specific communities, alleging it targets opposition strongholds like Seemanchal. The 7 lakh duplicate voters identified by the ECI could also reflect errors in voter list management rather than intentional fraud, yet the blanket removal of these names without individual verification violates due process and risks excluding legitimate voters. The Supreme Court’s concern over the exclusion of Aadhaar and voter IDs as valid documents underscores the discriminatory potential of these requirements, particularly for Bihar’s socio-economically disadvantaged population.
3. Questionable Timing and Lack of Transparency
The SIR’s compressed timeline—launched in June 2025, with draft rolls due by August 1 and final rolls by September 30—coincides with Bihar’s monsoon and flooding season, hindering effective door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The ECI’s claim of 99.8% voter coverage, with 7.23 crore forms digitized, is dubious given the logistical challenges and the fact that 20,000 of the 1 lakh BLOs were yet to be employed as of early July. The sudden shift from a “robust” January 2025 voter list to a complete overhaul, as reported by The Reporters’ Collective, suggests a lack of coherence and raises questions about the ECI’s motives.
Moreover, the ECI’s provisional figures have been inconsistent. On July 14, the ECI reported 12.55 lakh deceased and 35.69 lakh total missing voters, which jumped to 18.66 lakh deceased and 52.3 lakh missing by July 22, and finally to 22 lakh deceased and 61 lakh total by July 24. This rapid escalation, without clear explanation, undermines the process’s credibility. Yogendra Yadav, a psephologist, described the SIR as a “Tughlaqi firmaan” (arbitrary decree), noting that the process lacks transparency and public awareness, with many voters unaware of the need to submit forms. The ECI’s claim of sharing lists with political parties for verification is disputed by opposition leaders, who report receiving no such lists, further eroding trust.
4. Potential to Tilt Electoral Outcomes
The scale of the ECI’s provisional figures—potentially excluding over 61 lakh voters—has profound implications for Bihar’s elections. With 243 assembly seats, an average of 25,000 voters per constituency could be removed, enough to swing results in tight races. In the 2020 Bihar elections, 15 seats were decided by margins under 5,000 votes, and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won by a slim 12-seat majority. The exclusion of 7-8% of the electorate, particularly from opposition-leaning marginalized groups, could disproportionately benefit the ruling NDA, as alleged by leaders like Rahul Gandhi. The ECI’s insistence on removing “ineligible” voters, including the 22 lakh deceased and 1 lakh untraceable, without robust verification, risks systematic disenfranchisement that could manipulate electoral outcomes.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the SIR, with petitions from groups like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), highlights concerns over violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of expression), and 21 (right to life, including the right to vote). The ECI’s defense that it must exclude deceased and shifted voters to comply with the Constitution (Article 326) ignores the lack of due process in identifying these categories, as mandated by precedents like D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987).
5. Violation of Democratic Principles
The SIR’s reliance on inflated and questionable figures undermines the democratic principle of universal suffrage. The ECI’s Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, argued that allowing “dead and migrated” voters on the rolls is unconstitutional, yet the scale of deletions—equivalent to entire constituencies—without transparent evidence risks a greater constitutional violation: denying eligible citizens their right to vote. The absence of prior consultation with stakeholders, as criticized by ADR, and the hurried implementation during adverse conditions violate principles of natural justice. Former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has emphasized that the ECI’s role is to facilitate voting, not erect barriers, yet the SIR’s figures suggest a deliberate effort to shrink the electorate.
Further the on the ground reports by journalists like Ajit Anjum (which have not been satisfactorily explianed by the ECI), have exposed the cursory and casual manner in which the BLOs are approaching this exercise requiring to be handled in sacred way. For the integrity of our democratic foundation, it is mandatory that the electorate should not be excluded or included summarily.
Cogent points—it’s better to be approximately correct than to be precisely wrong.
Let’s wait for the final figures— and the Supreme Court verdict.
In any case, it appears that the dead voters had not been eliminated over the past decades. If any of them is alive, all they need to do is to file their claim.
Agreed. But too early and too keen to congratulate the ECI which has not come clean so often. In my humble understanding of this process so far and the conduct of ECI over the last decade, they have no reason to celebrate.
I was clearing the air on SIR— they were cleaning the proverbial augean stables— a lot of dirt had to come out.
But they are not afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 😁😁😁
😂
In the Hon’ble Supreme Court today: ((From Facebook page of Sardar Pritam Singh))
Here is a summary of today’s orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition challenging the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls:
1. Court Assurance for Early Hearing: The Supreme Court, led by Justice Surya Kant, assured the petitioners that their matters would be heard at the earliest, with a directive to lawyers to submit tentative times required for arguments the following day. This ensures the petitioners’ concerns will be addressed prompt
2. Court’s Openness to Scrutinize the Process: Justice Kant noted that the draft electoral list is not final, and the Court could ultimately strike down the entire SIR process if any illegality is found. This provides the petitioners with a potential avenue for legal recourse if the process is deemed unlawful.
3. Judicial Emphasis on Inclusion: The Supreme Court, through Justice Kant, verbally urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to prioritize “en masse inclusion” over “en masse exclusion” of voters. This aligns with the petitioners’ concerns about preventing widespread disenfranchisement, particularly of marginalized groups like Muslims, Dalits, and poor migrants.
4. Advocacy for Statutory Documents: The Court verbally directed the ECI to consider statutory documents like Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) for voter inclusion, reinforcing the petitioners’ argument that these widely available documents should be accepted, as they were in the 2024 General Elections.
5. Judicial Recognition of Document Presumption: Justice Kant emphasized a “presumption of correctness” for official documents like Aadhaar and EPIC, suggesting that forgery concerns should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than leading to blanket exclusions. This supports the petitioners’ contention against the ECI’s exclusion of these documents.
6. Prior Judicial Concerns Acknowledged: On July 10, a vacation bench had raised concerns about the ECI’s legal authority to seek proof of citizenship and the short notice given to voters to furnish documents. This earlier judicial skepticism aligns with the petitioners’ challenge to the ECI’s authority and the practicality of the SIR process.
7. Recognition of Democratic Importance: The Court, on July 10, noted that the petitions raised a critical issue concerning the “right to vote,” which goes to the root of democracy. This acknowledgment validates the petitioners’ stance on protecting voters’ fundamental rights.
8. ECI’s Submission on Illustrative Document List: The Court recorded the ECI’s submission that the list of 11 documents specified for proving citizenship was illustrative, not exhaustive. This offers the petitioners potential flexibility in advocating for additional documents like Aadhaar and ration cards.
These points reflect the Court’s responsiveness to the petitioners’ concerns, its emphasis on voter inclusion, and its willingness to scrutinize the ECI’s process, all of which are favorable to the petitioners’ position against the SIR’s potential to disenfranchise voters.
Bottom line: no stay, the process continues— ECI to decide each case in accordance with law.