ECI Must Focus on Spirit of Its Mandate; SIR in Bihar Suggests Otherwise

Supreme Court Intervenes, Saying Aadhaar Must Be Accepted in Bihar’s Voter List Revision

August 23, 2025

The Supreme Court has directed that voters excluded by the Election Commission of India (ECI) from Bihar’s draft electoral roll under a special revision exercise must be allowed to file objections using Aadhaar or any of 11 recognised documents. The order indicates that the Commission failed to design the revision process in a way that protects universal suffrage, which is central to its constitutional role.

The ECI launched a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls in June, arguing that the update was necessary because the state had not undergone a full revision since 2003. Booth Level Officers and field staff reviewed the lists and marked names for deletion on grounds such as duplication, death, or migration.

The deletions were compiled into a draft roll, which the ECI published on 1 August. It showed that about 6.5 million (65 lakh) names had been excluded. Voters who found their names missing were told they could apply for re-inclusion by submitting Form 6, which is used to either enrol as a new voter or apply for inclusion of their name in the electoral roll if it has been left out, along with one of 11 specified identity documents. Aadhaar, ration cards, and voter ID cards were not on this list.

Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenged the SIR before the Supreme Court. They argued that the exercise lacked procedural safeguards and could result in mass disenfranchisement. The Court directed the Commission to publish a district-wise list of proposed deletions, accept objections online, and issue written acknowledgements for physical submissions. It also asked political parties to assist affected voters and noted that only two objections had been filed by party representatives.

In its defence, the ECI invoked Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. These provisions empower the Commission to manage elections and revise electoral rolls. The Commission told the Court that no voter would be excluded without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order.

The legal authority of the Commission is not in doubt. The question is how it used that authority. The SIR was carried out with no public communication campaign, an overly narrow list of accepted documents, and no evidence of prior notice to affected voters.

On Aug. 22, the Supreme Court directed that excluded voters be allowed to file objections using Aadhaar or any of the 11 documents listed in Form 6, as reported by Bar and Bench. It clarified that objections could be submitted online and that booth-level officers must provide acknowledgement receipts for physical submissions. The Court also required political parties to assist excluded voters and noted with concern that only two objections had so far been filed by their booth-level agents.

An exercise that affects millions of voters requires procedural care. The Commission could have designed the process to include Aadhaar and voter ID cards from the start. It could have ensured that deletions were not implemented without individual notice. It could have created simple channels for redress and worked with political parties to help voters respond. It did none of these until pressed by the Supreme Court.

The ECI must also consider the context in which it operates. Public trust in electoral processes must be earned through transparency, accountability and consistent support for democratic participation. The rollout of the SIR, by contrast, appeared to be silent and opaque. The Commission’s eventual assurances to the Court were important, but they were reactive, not proactive.

The Supreme Court’s intervention has corrected many of the most harmful features of the SIR. But the fact that these safeguards were introduced through judicial pressure points to a deeper problem. The Commission appears to have relied on the letter of the law without attending to the substance of democratic inclusion. That is a failure of institutional judgment.

The Commission must treat this episode as a signal to recalibrate its methods and priorities.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.