What does it mean to live in a democracy if your name no longer appears on the electoral roll? In Bihar today, this question has attained chilling salience. Lakhs of citizens face an imminent threat of disenfranchisement solely because they may be unable to meet the onerous, shifting, and arbitrary burdens imposed on them by the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
The revision, announced in June 2025, with Bihar’s State elections looming in the background, has ushered in a period of deep uncertainty. There can be little doubt that electoral rolls must be periodically updated, ensuring that people eligible to vote are included and ineligible persons are excluded. The integrity of our democratic process demands nothing less.
However, the present exercise seeks to redraw the rolls in a fashion that is both opaque and hurried. With the publication of a draft roll scheduled for August 1, it is difficult to see how the administration can conduct so expansive an exercise in a constitutionally sound manner within so narrow a time frame.
What is troubling
More troubling still is the nature of the classifications that the ECI has introduced. A June 24 notification lists 11 acceptable forms of documentary proof — these range from passports and caste certificates to matriculation records. But, notably, it omits others that are more widely held, including Aadhaar card, ration card, driver’s licence, and even the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued by the ECI itself.
In parallel, the exercise also carves out a difference between voters who were included in the roll as part of the last intensive revision in 2003 and those added subsequently. The latter group must now re-establish their eligibility through a fresh application supported by documents. The ECI has not explained why it believes these entries, created and verified through its past processes, now warrant re-verification on a mass scale. If the implication is that the prior inclusion was flawed, then the onus must lie with the state, not with the voter.
To be sure, Article 324 of the Constitution empowers the ECI to maintain superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of the electoral rolls. Article 326 also mandates that elections are predicated on adult suffrage — that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age on an appointed date shall be eligible to vote.
To that end, The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, authorises the ECI to revise the rolls from time to time, and even to carry out “special revisions” where necessary. But these powers are not unlimited. They are subject to a slew of constitutional protections. The exercise of discretion, however well-intentioned, must be rooted in legality and proportionality and must remain restrained by the rights of those it affects.
Need for fairness and non-discrimination
The Supreme Court of India has long affirmed that free and fair elections constitute a non-negotiable cornerstone of India’s constitutional order. While the right to vote flows from statute, it remains critical to this guarantee — it operates within a framework that promises equality and political participation. Consequently, the process by which electoral rolls are revised must conform to standards of procedural fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. A revision that imposes unduly onerous burdens — particularly without adequate notice — on registered voters to re-establish their citizenship and which permits exclusions based on vague and inconsistently applied criteria would certainly fall afoul of these imperatives.
Under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, a classification made by the state must satisfy a two-part test: there must be an intelligible differentia distinguishing those people grouped together from those people left out. And that differentia must bear a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law or action in question.
On this test, the classifications made under the SIR are deeply suspect. First, there is the division between voters added during the intensive revision in 2003 and those added thereafter. Even assuming that this distinction is intelligible, its relevance to the stated objective — of ensuring electoral-roll integrity — remains unclear. Is the ECI suggesting that its post-2003 additions were based on weaker evidentiary standards? If so, why have those names remained on the rolls through successive elections?
Second, the categorisation of identity documents also appears arbitrary. The notification treats school-leaving certificates as sufficient documentation, but disregards ECI-issued EPIC Cards, introducing, in the process, an element of unreasonableness that is impossible to reconcile with the guarantee of equal treatment. The consequences of these decisions are far-reaching. If the draft electoral roll published on August 1 omits previously registered voters, they will be left with a mere 30 days to furnish further documents evincing eligibility. That burden will fall most heavily on individuals who are least equipped to shoulder it — the socially marginalised and the economically disadvantaged. Many might not even be aware that their names have been deleted. To impose new documentary hurdles is to raise the cost of participation for those already furthest from the system.
Top court’s intervention
On July 10, lengthy arguments were advanced before a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on whether the SIR should be stayed. During the hearing, the Bench appeared perplexed by the ECI’s exclusion of widely held identity documents. While it did not issue any interim restraint, the Court said that it would be in the “interest of justice” if the ECI “also considers the following three documents as well (apart from the 11 documents mentioned in order dated 24.06.2025), i.e., A) Aaadhar Card; B) Electors Photo Identify Card (EPIC), which is issued by Election Commission of India itself, and C) the Ration Card”.
But what does the word “consider” mean in this context? Must the ECI accept these documents as valid evidence, or merely review them and reject them if it so chooses? The ambiguity leaves enough doubt to create further delay, which can also potentially lead to the creation of a fait accompli. By the time the matter returns to the Court, the draft roll will be on the verge of publication, with voters who have been wrongly excluded scrambling to meet deadlines.
Given the gravity of the issues involved and given the impending Assembly elections in the State, the status quo in the case must be preserved. But, equally, given that the questions are limited and the record essentially documentary, the Court must move swiftly. It should prompt parties to exchange pleadings without delay and schedule the matter for a final hearing before the revision becomes irreversible.
The legitimacy of an election depends not only on the fairness of its outcome but also on the inclusiveness of its process. When the rules of inclusion are changed midstream, when the onus of proof is moved without reason, and when constitutional guarantees are filtered through layers of bureaucratic and administrative discretion, what remains is not participation but performance. The Court can scarcely supervise every line on the roll, but it must ensure that the manner of its preparation meets our exacting constitutional standards.
In India’s founding moment, the electoral roll was an act of republican recognition. As Ornit Shani has shown in her book, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship And The Making Of The Universal Franchise, it was built not by excluding the undocumented but by bureaucrats striving to find and register them. The presumption then was that people belonged. That presumption now hangs in the balance. It is for the Court to decide whether it still holds.
Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate practising in the Madras High Court
Published – July 17, 2025 12:16 am IST