Bihar Voter Roll Revision Sparks Citizenship Row Ahead of Assembly Elections

The ongoing voter list revision in Bihar has ignited a major political and legal controversy, with allegations of unprecedented procedural changes and concerns about citizenship verification. The issue has reached the Supreme Court, which is now examining whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) has exceeded its mandate by introducing new requirements for proving citizenship.

From 18 Crore Voters to 99 Crore: Why the New System is Unprecedented

When India held its first general elections in the early 1950s, there were around 18 crore voters. Today, the electoral roll includes nearly 99 crore voters. Traditionally, voter roll revisions have been periodic and routine, with officials visiting households to ensure accuracy. However, this time, the ECI has introduced what it calls a Special Intensive Revision in Bihar—a move critics describe as a de facto fresh voter list from scratch just months before the state’s Assembly elections in November.

What makes this exercise unprecedented is the requirement to furnish proof of Indian citizenship, a condition that has never been part of the voter roll process in the past. Previously, documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, or voter ID (EPIC) were sufficient. The new directive, however, emphasizes birth certificates or parental details, raising questions about its feasibility and legality.

Why Citizenship Verification? The Official Justification

The ECI argues that this measure is essential to address concerns over illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Nepal allegedly finding their way into electoral rolls. The Commission claims the exercise will ensure a free, fair, and transparent election, citing the Constitutional mandate under Article 326, which allows only Indian citizens aged 18 and above to vote.

The Citizenship Act, 1955, lays down the legal framework:

• Anyone born in India before July 1, 1987, is a citizen.
• Those born between 1987 and 2003 qualify if at least one parent is an Indian citizen.
• After 2003, both parents need to meet specific criteria.

However, experts point out that only the Union Government can grant or revoke citizenship—not state authorities, and certainly not Block Level Officers (BLOs) tasked with field verification. This raises a critical question: Can BLOs decide whether someone is a citizen?

The Controversy: Burden of Proof Shifts to Voters

In India, unlike the U.S., the responsibility of enrolling voters traditionally lies with the Election Commission, which sends officials door-to-door. This approach has ensured nearly 96% coverage in recent elections, compared to 74% in the U.S., where citizens must self-register.

For the first time in India’s electoral history, the onus is being shifted to the voter. If individuals fail to fill out the new forms and provide documentary proof, their names could be struck off the rolls—even if they were previously registered.

Originally, the ECI’s order dated June 24 stated:

• If your name appeared in the 2003 voter list, you only need to attach a photocopy as proof.
• If born between 1987 and 2003, you must provide your birth certificate and that of one parent.
• If born after 2003, you must provide your own and both parents’ birth certificates.

Legal experts argue that these requirements are impractical and legally questionable, given that many citizens lack birth certificates.

Multiple Revisions and Confusion Over Rules

Since the initial order, the ECI has issued several clarifications amid growing criticism:

1. Parents’ birth certificates may not be mandatory if names appear in the 2003 list.
2. Citizens can submit forms without certificates for now and furnish documents later.
3. Even photographs, initially required, have been made optional.

However, these ad hoc relaxations have created confusion among voters and officials alike. In some urban centers like Patna, officials reportedly used non-standard forms instead of official ECI forms, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the process.

Why the Hurry?

Opposition parties, including RJD and Congress, allege that the exercise is politically motivated, aiming to manipulate voter rolls before the Assembly polls. They question the timing: Why undertake such an extensive revision barely three months before elections when a notification could soon bar legal challenges?

Supreme Court’s Concerns

The Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions on the matter, has acknowledged the ECI’s constitutional authority to conduct revisions but expressed “serious reservations about the timing and procedure”. It observed that requiring proof of citizenship could lead to mass disenfranchisement and increase litigation.

Key Takeaways

• For the first time, voter lists in Bihar are being rebuilt from scratch, not merely revised.
• The burden of proof has shifted from the state to the citizen.
• Documentation requirements are stricter than ever, sparking fears of large-scale voter exclusion.
• Political and legal battles are intensifying ahead of Bihar elections, making this a high-stakes electoral controversy.

Stay tuned as this story unfolds—it is likely to dominate the Monsoon Session debates, with implications for constitutional rights, federal governance, and the integrity of India’s democratic process.