Rethink Aadhaar expresses deep concern about the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision, dated June 24, 2025, to initiate a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The revision introduces documentation requirements that are likely to result in the large-scale exclusion of genuine voters, particularly those who belong to marginalised and low-income communities. 

It requires large segments of the electorate to produce documentation proving citizenship, including for persons born after 2004 and their parents, despite no finding of irregularities or illegality in the existing electoral roll. For those not found on the 2003 rolls, layered documentation is required: voters born before July 1, 1987 must produce documents showing their own date and place of birth; those born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004 must also furnish one parent’s documents; and those born after December 2, 2004 must produce documents for both parents. The revision has been imposed without adequate notice, time, or procedural safeguards. 

The exercise disproportionately burdens those without formal documentation. Data from the Civil Registration System shows that Bihar has lagged far behind most states in registration of births - in 2000, only 3.7% of births were registered in Bihar, compared to the national average of 56.2%. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-20) corroborates this story. Bihar was in the three lowest states in terms of birth registration across the country even in 2020. Only 2.8 percent of children born between 2001 and 2025 in Bihar possess birth certificates. Many also lack passports, educational records, or other high-threshold documents. By excluding widely held identity documents such as ration cards, the revision imposes an unrealistic evidentiary bar, especially for migrant workers, women, informal sector workers, and the rural poor who have historically relied on these for state recognition.

The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 permit removal from the rolls only if a person is shown to be dead, not ordinarily resident, or otherwise ineligible. This must be done based on due process, including notice, reasons, and an opportunity to be heard, as per Section 22 and Rule 21A. These procedural protections are crucial to safeguarding the right to vote under Article 326, and are closely linked to constitutional guarantees of equality under Article 14, dignity under Article 21, and political expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The Supreme Court of India in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) affirmed that a person whose name appears on the electoral roll is presumed validly enrolled and may be removed only after individualised notice and a hearing. These protections cannot be substituted by blanket demands for re-verification or general suspicion.

No specific, jurisdiction-based justification has been provided for the Bihar SIR. While the ECI’s June 24 and June 30 press releases mention “illegal immigration,” “under-registration of deaths,” and youth enrollment, there is no data or local context to support a full-scale revision. A Special Summary Revision was conducted in Bihar from October 2024 to January 2025 without serious irregularities.

This is not the first time such a process has triggered disenfranchisement. In 2005, over 20 lakh voters were reportedly removed from Bihar’s rolls without transparency (Page 152, Election Commission of India (2019) Ujjwal Kumar Singh and Anupama Roy, Oxford University Press). The current directive again risks large-scale exclusion. While the ECI has claimed that 4.96 crore voters on the 2003 roll are exempt, public data suggests only 3.16 crore of them remain resident and alive. This means up to 4.76 crore voters may be required to re-establish their eligibility through new documents. 

The revision also fails to account for migrant workers, who form a substantial part of Bihar’s labour force. Data from the 2024 general election revealed lower male turnout, widely attributed to out-migration. These individuals are often enrolled in their home constituencies but may be unable to return during short verification windows. The SIR provides no system for identifying or protecting such voters, despite their legal status as ordinary residents.

Recent experiments with mobile voting in Bihar’s municipal elections, involving blockchain and facial recognition, have raised serious concerns about biometric exclusions and violations of the principle of secret ballot.

The current approach reverses the constitutional presumption of inclusion and treats large sections of the population as presumptively ineligible. The burden of proof rests on the citizen, without adequate procedural support. Such an approach undermines the promise of universal adult suffrage and weakens the foundations of democratic citizenship.

Rethink Aadhaar calls upon the Election Commission of India to immediately suspend the ongoing Special Intensive Revision in Bihar. Any revision must be grounded in law, comply with due process, and reflect constitutional values of equality, dignity, and democratic participation.

We urge the following immediate safeguards to protect the right to vote:

1. Inclusive and locally verified door-to-door verification:  Booth Level Officers should be directed to conduct home visits in a facilitative and rights-based manner, avoiding bureaucratic or coercive questioning. Verification should rely on lived residence and neighbourhood testimony where formal documents are unavailable, particularly in rural, migrant, and urban poor communities.
   
   

2. Acceptance of affidavits in lieu of formal documents:  Voters without adequate documentation should be allowed to submit sworn affidavits affirming their citizenship and residence. These can be verified through local panchayat or municipal authorities. This ensures procedural flexibility and recognises historical exclusion from documentation systems.
   
   

3. Presumption of validity for previously enrolled voters:  Voters whose names have appeared on any past electoral roll under the law should be presumed eligible unless there is a specific and individualised objection raised under Section 22 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. In such cases, changes of residence or eligibility may be verified through local field inquiry rather than requiring mass documentation. The current exemption only for 2003 roll voters creates arbitrary distinctions.

4. Support systems for displaced and mobile populations: Procedural flexibility must be built into the SIR to protect the rights of migrant workers and disaster-affected populations. This includes longer timelines, walk-in centres, language-appropriate grievance mechanisms, mobile help desks, and paper-based submission options. A labourer without phone access or digital literacy should not lose their right to vote because of technological barriers.