The ECI has given itself the right to deny or confirm citizenship, which constitutes an overreach.
Published Jul 28, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 28, 2025 | 9:00 AM
Election Commission of India. (iStock)
Synopsis: Given that Bihar has millions of migrants living outside the state, it is wrong to presume they have abandoned their voting rights without sufficient notice. Section 16 of the RPA only talks of the ineligibility of those who are not citizens of India, not a presumption that someone is ineligible. The onus of proof, given the short notice, should be on the ECI, not poor citizens.
Imagine you are the tenant of a house and the owner suddenly shows up one day and asks you to vacate the place within a day. When you protest, saying this requires a month’s notice under the lease, he thrusts a wad of notes in your hands and says the same contract permits him to seek vacation by offering a month’s rent instead of the notice period.
Is that legal? Yes. Is that fair? I would expect most people to say no.
That is the analogy I would like to draw to illustrate the mess over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar being conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI). On the face of it, everything the constitutional body seems legal, but it is full of holes – legal, procedural, and practical – that it grossly fails what I call the “fairness” or “reasonableness” test in public life.
No wonder then several political parties, including the main opposition party in Bihar, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and its ally, the Congress, are crying foul. The matter is before the Supreme Court now, and the top court may yet save lakhs of voters from the denial of a right to vote that comes with citizenship. But the ECI has played its cards so carefully that one is tempted to describe it as a political ambush that would deprive eligible voters of their right to vote this year, with potentially serious consequences.
I dug a little deeper into the phenomenon and found that even without recourse to legal nuances, there is a case to slam the ECI because of the sheer timing and manner of the revision and the data from the results of the last elections to the 243 constituencies of the Bihar assembly held in 2020.
First up, the ECI announced its special revision only in late June, a bare four months before elections are due. Given that the last such special revision was held 22 years ago, one would have expected such a revision to be held in the middle of a state assembly’s term, not towards its close. The timing is, therefore, quite suspect.
It is common knowledge that workers from Bihar are all over India, and perhaps elsewhere. Given the huge migrant population of the state, I would expect much more finesse and care on this. But the Election Commission couldn’t care less. I refer to Biharis, India’s most seen internal migrants, as economic soldiers who work hard to help the country and their state. Much like soldiers and diplomats who are eligible for postal ballots, unless they are proven to have taken up long-term residence in another state, I would expect them to get the benefit of the doubt where the revision of rolls is done at short notice.
Now, the ECI, in its press release dated 24 June, sounded pure as driven snow. “Various reasons such as rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths, and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants have necessitated the conduct of an intensive revision to ensure integrity and preparation of error-free electoral rolls.”
That’s right, but migration is a complex issue that requires more attention. What is happening meanwhile in the political sphere is that the BJP is conflating issues related to illegal immigrants with legal migrants to accuse the opposition of foul play. My cynical thought was that it only sets the stage for excuses for the BJP and its ally, the Janata Dal (United), led by Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, in case they lose the elections.
Be that as it may, ECI also notes it “shall be scrupulously adhering to the Constitutional and legal provisions regarding eligibility to be registered as a voter and disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll which are laid down in Article 326 of the Constitution of India and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, respectively.”
My reading of both the article and the RPA suggests room for manoeuvre that the ECI has not disclosed. Article 326 cites “non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice” among reasons for denial of vote. Given that Bihar has millions of migrants living outside the state, it is wrong to presume they have abandoned their voting rights without sufficient notice. Section 16 of the RPA only talks of the ineligibility of those who are not citizens of India, not a presumption that someone is ineligible. The onus of proof, given the short notice, should be on the ECI, not poor citizens.
Then comes the punch. In a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court, the ECI said the Aadhaar number/card, widely recognised by banks and government agencies as proof of residence, is not proof of citizenship, posing a tricky administrative question weeks before the announcement of state elections. It even argued against its Voter ID cards (EPIC) as proof, virtually disenfranchising millions who were on the previous electoral rolls.
Does the poll panel expect a poor landless labourer from Darbhanga to have a police-verified passport?
Needless to say, the ECI also dismissed the credibility of ration cards as proof of citizenship. In effect, it has derecognised India’s most commonly used yardstick of citizenship and address proof. Bottom line: ECI gives itself the right to deny or confirm citizenship, which constitutes an overreach. The matter is likely to drag on in the Supreme Court of India, given the nuances of law and constitutional
gaps.
Where does that leave the political ground reality?
Let us now look at some hard data that should hit a nail on the head. One report said last week that the new Bihar voter list could cut the number of electors per constituency by 23,000.
The ECI said 56 lakh voter entries had been deleted, but that is not the issue in itself. Setting aside this figure that includes 20 lakh people considered dead and 28 lakh with primary residence in another state, and seven lakh duplicate voters, there are more grey areas.
About one lakh people could not be contacted, while another 15 lakh did not return verification forms – as per the ECI data.
By considering only the 16 lakh out-of-contact and formless folks, I deduced that every constituency has potentially 6,500 voters who are on the verge of being illegally disenfranchised.
Now, consider some hard background facts. The assembly elections held in 2020 were the closest in Bihar’s history. About 100 of the 243 seats saw victory margins of less than 5,000 votes. And the RJD-led alliance lost by 5,000 votes or less in about 50 seats.
In the backdrop of a general belief that anti-incumbency votes are common in Indian elections, that puts the ECI in a corner. The Election Commission is failing the fair-play and reasonableness test in terms of timing, procedures, and constitutional overreach. If the Supreme Court takes time to address the issue, the 2025 elections to the Bihar assembly will invite well-argued charges of political match-fixing.
(Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
