The Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, initiated in June 2025, has significantly evolved in response to extensive criticism, Supreme Court scrutiny, and grassroots feedback. Initially perceived by many as a covert attempt at a citizenship verification process, it transformed into a more inclusive initiative aimed at ensuring that legitimate voters were not excluded. Upon the announcement of the SIR, the EC introduced an unprecedented requirement: individuals not listed in Bihar’s 2003 electoral rolls—estimated to be around 2.93 crore people—were required to present at least one of 11 documents to validate their voting eligibility. These documents included birth certificates, government job or pension papers, caste certificates, property records, and others.
Notably, commonly used documents such as Aadhaar, ration cards, and even the Commission’s own Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) were initially excluded, raising concerns as it resembled a citizenship verification process, particularly in a state characterized by intricate migration and demographic dynamics. Civil society organizations, opposition parties, and affected individuals contested this move in the Supreme Court. While the EC defended its position by highlighting issues with ration cards and reiterating that Aadhaar does not constitute proof of citizenship, the Court mandated a reevaluation. Subsequently, Aadhaar was accepted as a 12th valid document. Meanwhile, reports from the ground revealed the challenges faced by voters, particularly in rural and marginalized areas, who struggled to produce the necessary documentation.
Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and local officials found the process perplexing and expressed concerns over potential mass exclusions. In response to these issues, the EC altered its approach. It directed officials to proactively find ways to verify voters’ eligibility rather than requiring them to provide documents. A crucial change involved linking individuals back to the 2003 rolls. If voters were absent from the list, officials endeavored to connect them as children, relatives, or dependents of registered individuals. Ultimately, approximately 77% of Bihar’s electorate was linked to the 2003 rolls—52% directly and an additional 25% indirectly through familial connections.
For the remaining citizens, the EC utilized state databases such as family registers (locally known as vanshavali), the Mahadalit Vikas Register, and records from the caste survey. By the conclusion of this process, what started as a restrictive and controversial revision evolved into a more inclusive initiative. The final voter roll showed 68.6 lakh deletions—primarily due to death, migration, or duplicate entries—and 21.5 lakh new additions, resulting in Bihar’s total electorate reaching 7.42 crore. This situation illustrates how a top-down administrative order, initially seen as exclusionary, was reformed through judicial intervention and the realities faced by communities on the ground.
It also emphasizes the need to balance the integrity of voter rolls with the democratic rights of citizens to participate in elections.