Inside explosive Bihar voter list controversy: Is ECI running a silent NRC?

A routine electoral clean-up rarely grabs headlines. But Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter rolls, launched by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on June 24, has done just that. 

With Bihar due for the next assembly election in November, the timing and the nature of this exercise have raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.

Civil society groups, legal experts and opposition leaders have flagged it as arbitrary, rushed and possibly unconstitutional. They argue that the revision process forces voters to prove their eligibility all over again, with little clarity on the rules.

The fear is not merely clerical error; it’s mass disenfranchisement.

Fears of exclusion, NRC undercurrent

Several opposition leaders have compared the SIR to a “backdoor NRC”. CPI(ML)’s Dipankar Bhattacharya, RJD’s Manoj Jha and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi allege that the exercise targets marginalised communities. Their concern? The documentation requirements are skewed against the poor, the landless, and the migrant.

In Bihar, barely 2.8% of people born between 2001 and 2005 have birth certificates. 

The EC initially excluded Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards from acceptable documents. Combined with floods, migration and low literacy, this approach risks excluding millions who simply cannot meet the paperwork demands.

Petitioners in the Supreme Court have pointed out that this 'de novo' approach to electoral rolls is not backed by the Representation of the People Act. They say it reverses the burden of proof and undermines the principle of universal adult suffrage under Article 326.

There is also unease over the lack of consultation with political parties before the roll-out. 

ECI says it’s legal, necessary, already working

The Election Commission, however, has strongly defended the SIR. It argues that it is empowered by Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the RPA, 1950 to conduct special revisions.

The last intensive revision in Bihar was done in 2003 — more than two decades ago. In those years, the state has seen enormous demographic change — urbanisation, migration, underreporting of deaths and suspected inclusion of foreign nationals.

According to the EC, the current rolls are riddled with errors and duplicates. The SIR, it says, is about electoral integrity, not voter suppression.

The process itself, according to EC officials, is already underway smoothly. Nearly 78,000 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are on the ground conducting door-to-door verification. As of July 8, more than 3.7 crore voters, nearly half the total electorate, had already submitted forms.

Balancing security and access

The EC says that for voters already present in the 2003 electoral roll, no documentation is required — only an enumeration form. For those added after 2003, one of 11 listed documents is needed, though exemptions exist for voters born after 1987 whose parents were already on the 2003 list.

This framework, the EC insists, is designed to minimise exclusions while improving accuracy. 

To calm public fears, the EC extended the document submission window beyond the earlier July 25 deadline.

Voters can now file claims and objections through to the end of September. 

Officials have clarified further that voters without documents can still be verified through a local investigation, ensuring due process. 

The commission has responded to criticism by uploading the 2003 rolls online and considering the inclusion of Aadhaar and voter IDs. These changes followed the Supreme Court’s suggestion during the July 10 hearing. The court had noted that easing the document criteria would be “in the interest of justice.” 

Bigger question: Process or politics?

Despite the EC’s assurances, critics remain sceptical. They point to the timing of the exercise — as the state election knocks at the door — as deliberate. They argue that any large-scale revision at this stage could tilt the playing field, whether or not that’s the EC’s intent.

Trust, rather than legality, is emerging as the core issue. Even if the process is technically sound, the way it has been communicated has left millions of voters in the dark. In many rural areas, people are unaware of what documents are needed, or why they must resubmit details at all. 

The Supreme Court has so far allowed the exercise to proceed but flagged its timing and methodology as problematic. Its next hearing on July 28 could shape the way forward — not only for Bihar but also for any similar exercises in other states.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: Voter confidence must be restored before the ballot boxes open.