Special Intensive Revision Of Electoral Rolls Cannot Be Allowed To Proceed In Its Current Form

By P. Sudhir

The heart and soul of parliamentary democracy lie in the essential process of holding free and fair elections – a process that ensures a level playing field for all political parties. Owing to this feature, parliamentary democracy is often regarded as electoral democracy. It is not for nothing that the Constituent Assembly, which deliberated for two years before adopting the Constitution on January 26, 1950, addressed the various aspects of ensuring free and fair elections to the legislative assemblies and parliament in an extremely elaborate manner.

Naturally, this detailed blueprint for conducting elections placed central importance on the independent and bipartisan functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI). To ensure that the ECI remained free from partisan political influence and functioned independently of both the union and state governments, wide and adequate powers were conferred upon it to place it in a position of absolute authority.

This mandate is enshrined in Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, which states that the Election Commission shall be vested with the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President. The Election Commission is also responsible for preparing electoral rolls and conducting these elections.

Over the last 75 years, the electoral system has operated with a fair degree of integrity, transparency, and in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Despite minor aberrations, the ECI had earned respect both within India and across the world.

However, this scenario has changed since the Narendra Modi-led BJP government assumed office. The composition of the Commission has become a source of controversy, especially due to the manner in which the Supreme Court’s recommendations on the composition of Search Committee — responsible for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners — have been undermined, bringing the process under the absolute control and stranglehold of the executive. More importantly, the first Modi government introduced highly outrageous amendments to political funding of elections by allowing anonymous and unlimited corporate donations. This has fundamentally altered the landscape of electoral financing, enabling a dangerous quid pro quo between corporate interests and elected governments.

When the Supreme Court struck down the provisions enabling Electoral Bonds – terming the scheme unconstitutional – it exposed the pattern of political funding to public scrutiny. Not only was there clear evidence of disproportionate gains for the BJP compared to other political parties, but the manner in which these bonds were collected also revealed major financial irregularities and provided the clearest evidence of quid pro quo arrangements.

Other issues have also emerged in the public domain, such as concerns regarding the integrity of the composite Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system. Numerous questions persist about technical details such as the source code and sanitisation protocols for the machines that are crucial to ensuring transparency and absolute integrity. The debate around these concerns remains unresolved.

In recent years, particularly in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the partisan role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has become increasingly visible. The ECI’s inaction in the face of the BJP’s brazen attempts to shield the prime minister and the home minister, and its failure to check the politicisation of the Pulwama-Balakot incidents to construct a security-centric, muscular nationalism narrative during election campaign facilitated a serious breach of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

This brings us to a crucial issue: the institutionalisation of political parties’ role in shaping the conduct of elections. Traditionally, the ECI has based its major decisions and measures on consultations with, and suggestions from, political parties. The MCC itself is not a statutory provision, but rather an expression of political consensus across the spectrum.

The current concern relates to the Special Intensive Revision of the Electoral Roll ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections. The present term of the Bihar Assembly ends on November 22, 2025, and elections must naturally be held before that date. On June 24, 2025, the ECI issued a set of documents to initiate the revision process: a four-page press note, a nineteen-page letter to the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, a three-page order, nine pages of detailed guidelines, a two-page enumeration form including a declaration format, and a two-page declaration form with an indicative list of documents to be submitted in support of the declaration.

These detailed documents raise several serious questions. The first is one of chronology. The press note was issued on June 24, 2025, and the cut-off date for concluding the Special Intensive Revision has been set for July 1, 2025. In the interim, Electoral Registration Officers are required to print pre-filled enumeration forms (in duplicate) for all existing electors, distribute them to the respective Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and conduct training for the BLOs. The BLOs, in turn, must distribute the forms door-to-door, collect the filled forms, and verify them. In addition, higher officials must carry out rationalisation and rearrangement, finalise the proposed restructuring of polling stations, get the list of polling stations approved, publish the draft Electoral Rolls by August 1, 2025, and the final Electoral Rolls by September 30, 2025. The intervening two-month period is meant for the filing of claims and objections.

Even a cursory reading of these near-encyclopedic sized documents reveals their bizarre nature. Equally questionable is the justification offered for this intensive revision: rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, eligibility of new voters, non-reporting of deaths, and inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants. The revision is aimed to update the rolls with January 1, 2003 as the base reference date. These issues have persisted for over two decades. By this logic, the ECI is implying that elections held in Bihar over the last 22 years were compromised – an allegation that raises troubling questions about the legitimacy of past governments.

Although the documents briefly refer to the cooperation of political parties, the ECI has, in practice, undertaken this ‘grand exercise’ without any consultation with them. The invocation of illegal immigrants and the stringent documentation requirements strongly suggest a backdoor introduction of the NRC. There are numerous other gaps, both minor and major, in this entire exercise. It is clear that under the guise of a Special Intensive Revision, a significant number of deletions will be carried out in the name of “cleansing” the electoral rolls. This will particularly impact Bihar’s poor and working-class population, many of whom lack both digital and physical access due to their migratory circumstances.

This is Maharashtra in reverse, where between the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, 39 lakh new voters were added to the rolls in just five months, defying demographic logic.

The final message is loud and clear: this exercise is intended to create a fresh bogey of polarisation under the pretext of infiltration. The Special Intensive Revision cannot proceed in its current form. Opposition parties have raised their voices. The ball is now squarely in the ECI’s court – and the constitutional spirit must not be abandoned. (IPA Service)