Election Watchdog Warns of Mass Voter Exclusion in Bihar, Seeks Supreme Court Intervention
RMN News Report Highlights:
- Flawed Procedures Alleged: The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) warns of mass uploading of voter forms without consent, leading to potential disenfranchisement for thousands, possibly millions, of voters in Bihar.
- Document Bias Questioned: The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable identity documents during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is challenged by ADR as “absurd”.
- Unchecked Discretion by Officials: ADR highlights that a single electoral registration officer (ERO) is reportedly handling over three lakh forms, making due diligence and fair scrutiny “humanly impossible”.
- Burden of Proof Reversed: ADR contends that the SIR unfairly shifts the burden of proof of citizenship onto existing voters, many of whom were previously verified through due process.
RMN News Political Desk
July 26, 2025
New Delhi: The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has urgently called upon the Supreme Court to intervene in the Election Commission’s special intensive revision (SIR) process in Bihar, warning that the hurried and unclear procedures could disenfranchise thousands of voters.
In a rejoinder filed against the ECI’s June 24 directive, ADR has alleged that voter enumeration forms are being mass-uploaded by booth level officers (BLOs) and electoral registration officers (EROs) without the knowledge or consent of electors.
This includes reports from many voters who claim their forms were submitted online despite never having met with BLOs or signing any documents, with even forms of dead individuals reported to have been submitted. The election watchdog also stated that some voters received acknowledgement receipts on their phones without any interaction with officials, while others did not receive acknowledgement slips at all.
ADR emphasized the systemic flaw in the process, pointing out that a single ERO is tasked with handling over three lakh forms, deeming it “humanly impossible” to ensure proper due diligence or fair scrutiny. The organization argues that the current mechanism is flawed and fails to provide affected voters sufficient time for their appeals to be adjudicated before the finalization of the electoral rolls, which are scheduled for publication on August 1.
RELATED RMN NEWS REPORTS
[ Rahul Gandhi Alleges Widespread Election Fraud, Targets BJP and ECI ]
[ Supreme Court Questions Timing and Scope of Bihar Electoral Roll Revision ]
[ Modi Leverages Pakistan Attack Rhetoric as Election Fraud Claims Mount ]
A major point of contention raised by ADR is the ECI’s exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable identity documents during the SIR. While the ECI defended this by claiming such documents can be obtained fraudulently, ADR termed this reasoning “absurd,” noting that Aadhaar is widely accepted for obtaining other official documents like Permanent Residence Certificates, OBC/SC/ST Certificates, and passports. ADR further warned that all 11 approved documents are vulnerable to falsification, placing voters without documentation, especially those who have migrated or belong to disadvantaged communities, at a “huge risk of disenfranchisement”.
The election watchdog contends that the SIR violates fundamental constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326, as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. ADR has also refuted the ECI’s assertion that political parties had demanded the revision, clarifying that parties’ concerns were about the addition of non-existent voters, deletion of genuine voters supporting opposition parties, and votes being cast after poll closure.
Challenging the ECI’s interpretation of its powers under Article 324, ADR stated that the SIR effectively reverses the burden of proof of citizenship onto existing voters, many of whom were previously verified and included through due process. ADR cited Supreme Court judgments, including Lal Babu Hussain (1995), which held that the burden of proof of citizenship rests on new registrants, not those already on the electoral roll. They also referred to Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985), which established that presence on the electoral roll is prima facie proof of citizenship.
The ECI, on its part, has maintained that the SIR is necessary due to factors such as urban migration, demographic shifts, and outdated electoral rolls that have not undergone intensive revision in nearly two decades. It argues that it possesses plenary powers under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct such an exercise.
Discover more from RMN News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
