Election roll revision in Bihar threatens voter inclusion

Source: The post Election roll revision in Bihar threatens voter inclusion has been created, based on the article “Now, prove your identity” published in “Indian Express” on 8th July 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Election

Context: The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, launched weeks before elections, is raising concerns. Though aimed at ensuring only eligible voters are listed, it is creating bureaucratic hurdles that threaten to disenfranchise many, especially the vulnerable.

Unprecedented and Ill-Timed Electoral Exercise

1. Sudden Timing Before Elections: The last intensive revision happened in 2003. This new revision, following a summary update just six months ago, was announced without warning. The abrupt timing offers little scope for preparation.
2. Unusual Documentation Requirements: For the first time, voters must prove citizenship using one of 11 prescribed documents. This demand is unprecedented in electoral history.
3. Complex and Tiered Verification: Document rules differ by birth year. Those born after 2004 must provide both their own and their parents’ birth details. The process is confusing and heavily burdensome for ordinary citizens.

Arbitrariness and Risk of Mass Disenfranchisement

1. Rejection of Commonly Held Documents: Though 11 documents are listed, widely held IDs like Aadhaar and MGNREGA cards are excluded. Inaccessible alternatives, like family registers, are required instead.
2. High Risk of Exclusion: Lakhs may be excluded, as most citizens lack the full set of documents. Petitions highlight how few possess all required proofs.
3. Discretion and Administrative Gaps: Decisions are left to local officers. In a state like Bihar with uneven administrative capacity, this opens the door to arbitrary and unfair implementation.

Structural Biases and Historical Echoes

1. Privilege-Based Documentation: Most acceptable documents relate to education, government service, or property, recalling eras when voting was linked to privilege.
2. Indirect Discrimination: Though not a return to formal restrictions, this approach favours the privileged and indirectly excludes the poor and uneducated.
3. Procedural Protections as Pitfalls: Though hearings are promised before deletion, these safeguards expose citizens to discretionary power, delays, and harassment.

Disruption, Migration, and State Capacity

1. Unrealistic Timeframe: Mass migration and floods affect Bihar during this period. The deadlines are impractical and ignore these ground realities.
2. Limited State Capacity: The state lacks the ability to verify lakhs of voters quickly and fairly. Expecting proper execution is unrealistic.
3. Parallels with Demonetisation: The process resembles demonetisation — top-down enforcement that fuels public anxiety and bureaucratic chaos.

Undermining Trust and Democratic Principles

1. Fears of Backdoor NRC: The order seems like a pilot for NRC, introducing new norms without preparation or public debate.
2. Lack of Political Consensus: The Commission did not consult stakeholders or set consistent standards. Public trust is eroding as a result.
3. Judicial Role in Safeguarding Rights: Courts must ensure voting rights are protected. The revision must be fair in both procedure and effect.

Need for Course Correction

1. Disproportionate Burden on Marginalised: Rigid rules, detached from reality, hurt poor citizens the most.
2. The State’s True Responsibility: Instead of stoking fear, the state must ease citizens’ lives. The EC must defer this process until it can be transparent, inclusive, and fair.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the impact of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar on citizens’ voting rights and trust in democratic institutions.