The Election Commission of India (ECI) is battling a fight to not just prove that its decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state of Bihar is practically doable, but also to establish its credibility in front of the voters of the country. The matter of the SIR is before the Supreme Court which has already questioned the timing of the exercise, the methods and the reason why the poll panel couldn’t publish the names of 65 lakh deleted voters. Much has been talked and heard on the issue inside and outside the court, but one thing that needs a check is the ECI argument of 2003 exercise. 

In the apex court, the ECI has backed its arguments and pointers based on the last revision of voter list in Bihar that happened in 2002-03. Despite some big changes from then and now, the poll panel asserted that its timeline of three-month was enough for the exercise, and also refused to accept the voter ID card as proof of eligibility, a report in the Indian Express stated.

What is pertinent to note here is that the Election Commission’s guidelines during the 2002-03 exercise were entirely different – it had a longer timeline and it did not even ask for the citizenship of the voters, a change that has worried the petitioners. 

2002-03 voter list revision: EPIC backbone, no citizenship check 

Not just Bihar, but the ECI conducted special revision of the voter list in seven states in 2002-03. Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Punjab — all went through the process and the timeline was eight months, more than what ECI has set now. 

Also, then, the voters were not asked to furnish any proof of citizenship. The Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC), which the Commission has refused to accept this time, was the backbone of verification of existing voters then.

The trouble with these 11 documents, Aadhaar was not there and the process was much more inclusive, the report added. 

ALSO READ

What’s troubling the petitioners exactly?

There are a number of pointers that the petitioners have put before the top court to back their arguments against the ongoing SIR. One of the key arguments is the tight timeline of the exercise for a state that is going to polls in October-November this year.

Bihar SIR timeline: The ECI in its counter affidavit stated that the notions around the timeline of the exercise are “misconceived, erroneous and unsustainable”. It said they have provided “adequate time” to implement what all is needed. 

“The last such exercise was undertaken in Bihar in 2002-2003, and the period of enumeration was from 15.07.2002 to 14.08.2002. The current SIR has an enumeration period from 25.06.2025 to 26.07.2025. Thus, the allegation that ECI is conducting the exercise hastily is misconceived,” the poll panel’s affidavit before the apex court read.

But is it so?

In 2002-03, the revision went on for eight months, unlike the Commission’s one-month enumeration (or door-to-door verification) window. As per the present timeline, the report noted from the EC’s official release, the training of enumerators, door-to-door verification, scrutiny of claims, objection and the final roll — all these must be completed in just 97 days. 

Whereas, the last such revision in seven states went on from May 2002 to December 2002, i.e. for eight months, a retired ECI official associated with the 2002–03 intensive revision told IE.

ALSO READ

The total period of the exercises spanned 243 days:

  • 74 days for preparing a preliminary list of electors based on existing rolls, training enumerators, conducting pre-enumeration surveys, and rationalising polling booths.
  • 31 days for house-to-house verification.
  • 60 days for preparing and printing draft rolls.
  • 15 days for claims and objections.
  • 61 days for disposing of these claims, making additions, deletions and corrections.

Here’s the timeline of the process (97 days) for the ongoing exercise in Bihar:

  • 1 month for training enumerators, conducting pre-enumeration surveys, rationalising polling booths and carrying out the enumeration itself.
  • 3 days for publication of draft rolls (happened on August 1).
  • 1 month for filing claims and objections.
  • 25 days for their disposal and for deciding on enumeration.
  • final publication on October 1, just a few weeks before the Bihar assembly elections.

EC’s argument of 2003 as cut-off against citizenship proof

Another key reason for the petitioners to reach out to the court is the fact that the Election Commission has set the cut-off date for the SIR process to 2003, when the last revision took place. It argued that electors on the rolls until that year should be presumed citizens since they “have gone through the intensive revision of 2003 and remained so far in the electoral rolls, demonstrating probative evidence of eligibility.”

Hence, it said, “their eligibility, as enumerated under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, is presumed, unless any other input is received otherwise”, the ECI said, adding that the 2003 cut-off is “valid and non-discriminatory,” the IE report noted.

What makes it questionable is the fact that during the 2003 revision, there was no requirement for the electors to produce any proof of citizenship. “In the 2002–03 revision, enumerators visited households with lists drawn from existing rolls and verified whether the names of adult Indian citizens already on the list were still ordinarily resident. They corrected or added particulars where needed, but electors were not asked to produce proof of citizenship,” a former state CEO associated with the last intensive revision told the IE.

The instructions then clearly said that enumerators were not to determine citizenship, their entire role was only limited to verifying qualifications of age and ordinary residence of the voters, the report further said. 

Citizenship check during 2002-03 revision

The guidelines during the voter roll revision in 2002-03 stated that nationality of the voters would be checked in two cases: One, if they are first-time electors seeking registration, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) may seek documents to satisfy the question of citizenship. 

Second, in areas with a substantial presence of foreign nationals, as listed by the state government. However, existing electors in these areas were not required to prove citizenship. The ERO could ask for the citizenship proof to others under relevant laws, conducting fair hearings, and considering a range of documents — passports, birth or citizenship certificates, NRC entries.

Now, the Election Commission of India has taken an altogether different stance on the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar. It refused to accept the Supreme Court’s suggestion to consider EPIC cards as proof of eligibility for existing electors of Bihar, and initially did not accept Aadhaar as the proof of citizenship as well.

EC’s argument on not accepting EPIC: That it is submitted that the EPIC cannot be treated as proof of eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), 2025, as pursuant to Rule 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 read with Rule 25 of the RER, 1960, the said revision constitutes a de novo preparation of the electoral roll. The EPIC cards are prepared on the basis of electoral rolls. Since the electoral roll, itself, is being revised, the production of EPIC Cards will make the whole exercise futile.

The matter is before the top court which has now said that Aadhaar is valid for the voter roll revision and those who are on the list of deleted voters, can approach their booth level officers (BLOs) with the same. The opposition has made the issue a crucial battle point for Bihar elections calling the exercise “vote theft”. Only after the Bihar assembly election results will it be understood if the exercise had an impact on the elections.