The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has urged the Supreme Court to intervene in Election Commission’s special intensive revision in Bihar, warning that the rushed and opaque process could disenfranchise thousands.
In a rejoinder filed in a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s June 24 directive, ADR 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, potentially disenfranchising millions.
“Enumeration forms are being mass-uploaded by BLOs without the knowledge or consent of the voters, in order to achieve the unrealistic target set by the ECI. Many voters have reported that their forms have been submitted online, despite never having met with any BLOs or signed any documents. Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,” the ADR said, according to Live Law.
The election watchdog alleged that even voters who never interacted with officials have received acknowledgement receipts on their phones, and in several cases, acknowledgement slips are not being issued at all.
ADR pointed out that a single ERO is handling over three lakh forms, making it "humanly impossible" to ensure due diligence or fair scrutiny.
“The whole mechanism is flawed and fails to provide affected voters sufficient time to have their appeals adjudicated before the finalisation of the rolls,” ADR argued.
Under current rules, voters whose names are missing from the draft rolls, which is scheduled for publication on August 1, will be excluded unless they file a claim for inclusion. If the ERO has doubts about eligibility, they can initiate a suo motu inquiry and issue a deletion notice. Appeals can then be made to the district magistrate or chief electoral officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The ADR also questioned the ECI’s exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable identity documents during the SIR, a position the poll body defended by claiming such documents can be obtained fraudulently.
Terming this reasoning “absurd”, ADR said: “The fact that Aadhar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI’s rejection of Aadhar (which is the most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd,” as reported by Bar and Bench.
ADR argued that all 11 approved documents are vulnerable to falsification and warned that voters without documentation — particularly those who have migrated or belong to disadvantaged communities — are at “huge risk of disenfranchisement.”
The election watchdog contended that the SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as well as the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
ADR also refuted the ECI’s claim that political parties had demanded the revision. “The concerns of political parties were about addition of non-existent voters, deletion of genuine voters supporting opposition parties, and votes being cast after poll closure,” it said.
Challenging the poll body's interpretation of its powers under Article 324, ADR stated that the SIR reverses the burden of proof of citizenship onto existing voters, many of whom were previously verified and included through a due process.
“The said stand taken by ECI is contrary to this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in Lal Babu Hussain (1995) 3 SCC 100 where it was held that burden of proof of citizenship would be on those who are registering anew and not on those whose names are already on the electoral roll,” the ADR stated.
It further cited the Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India (1985) to argue that presence on the electoral roll is prima facie proof of citizenship.
The matter is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. ADR’s rejoinder was drawn by Advocates Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri and filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The ECI has maintained that the SIR is necessary due to urban migration, demographic shifts, and outdated rolls that haven’t undergone intensive revision in nearly two decades. It argued that it holds plenary powers under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct the exercise.