ADR Moves Supreme Court Over ECI’s Special Revision in Bihar, Citing Risk of Mass Disenfranchisement
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a strong rejoinder in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India (ECI), raising serious concerns over the conduct of a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls currently underway in Bihar.
The rejoinder, filed in response to a batch of petitions challenging the ECI’s June 24 directive, accuses the Commission of executing a hurried, opaque, and potentially unconstitutional process that could disenfranchise millions of genuine voters.
Allegations of Consentless Mass Uploads
ADR has alleged that electoral forms are being uploaded en masse by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), without the knowledge, interaction, or consent of the voters concerned.
According to the watchdog, the ECI’s directive set an “unrealistic target”, leading officials to take shortcuts to meet deadlines.
“Enumeration forms are being mass-uploaded by BLOs without the knowledge or consent of the voters, to achieve the unrealistic target set by the ECI.
Many voters have reported that their forms were submitted online despite never meeting a BLO or signing any documents. Even forms in the names of deceased individuals have reportedly been submitted,” ADR told the court, citing numerous complaints from the ground.
In some cases, individuals have reportedly received acknowledgement receipts for forms they never submitted, while in others, no receipt was issued at all. The ADR asserts that such actions severely undermine the transparency and integrity of the revision process.
Overburdened Officers, Flawed Mechanism
The rejoinder further noted that one ERO is handling over three lakh forms, a volume that is “humanly impossible” to manage while ensuring proper verification and scrutiny. With the draft electoral rolls set to be published on August 1, voters whose names are missing from the list will be excluded unless they proactively file claims for inclusion — a task many might not even know is necessary due to the lack of public awareness and communication.
This flawed process, ADR argues, denies affected voters sufficient time or opportunity to appeal deletions before the finalization of rolls. The watchdog fears this could especially impact migrant workers, disadvantaged groups, and people with limited documentation, leaving them voiceless in a crucial election year.
Questioning Identity Document Criteria
Another key point of contention is the ECI’s decision to exclude Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents for verification during the SIR. The Commission had defended this exclusion by stating that such documents could be obtained fraudulently.
ADR termed this reasoning “absurd and illogical.” The rejoinder points out that Aadhaar is accepted for securing essential government-issued documents like Permanent Residence Certificates, caste certificates, and passports. To exclude it from a voter verification process—when it is among the most widely held IDs in India—defies logic, ADR argues.
“The fact that Aadhaar is accepted for several high-security identity processes makes its exclusion in this context patently absurd,” the ADR said.
Moreover, it noted that all 11 approved documents on the ECI’s list are themselves susceptible to falsification, and that the burden of documentation unfairly disadvantages the poor, migrants, and marginalized communities.
Legal Grounds and Constitutional Concerns
ADR contends that the entire SIR process violates multiple constitutional provisions, including:
-
Article 14 – Right to Equality
-
Article 19 – Freedom of Expression
-
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
-
Article 325 – No person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be included in a special electoral roll on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them
-
Article 326 – Right to Vote
It also argues that the current process contravenes provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The rejoinder specifically challenges the ECI’s interpretation of its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, which gives the poll body plenary powers for overseeing elections. According to ADR, these powers do not give the ECI license to reverse the burden of proof of citizenship onto existing voters.
“The said stand taken by the ECI is contrary to this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in Lal Babu Hussain v. State of Assam (1995), which held that the burden of proof of citizenship lies with new applicants—not those already on the electoral rolls,” the ADR noted.
