The Tide of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar: Historical Trajectories, Contemporary Implications, and the Future of Electoral Participation in India
Introduction-
Elections are often celebrated as festivals of democracy in countries like India, embodying tides of hope where citizens envision the nation’s future through candidates they entrust with power. Yet, elections are not stand-alone events; their success depends on several institutional organs that ensure fairness and credibility. Among these, the electoral roll is fundamental, as it determines the eligibility of citizens to exercise their right to vote- a right first exercised in independent India during the general elections of 1951-52, which involved nearly 173 million voters. Over the decades, however, issues of duplication, exclusion, and inaccuracies have persisted.
To address these concerns, the Election Commission of India (ECI), empowered under section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, has periodically introduced corrective measures, including Special Intensive Revision (SIR). SIR, last conducted in 2004, has been reintroduced in Bihar in 2025.
The sudden order, issued merely four months before state elections in a population of nearly 8 crores, has generated apprehension regarding impartiality, ineffectiveness, and inaccuracies. The exercise started on June 25 with enumeration forms distributed to nearly 8 crore voters and will conclude with the publication of the revised rolls on September 30.
This piece examines the SIR—its history, its present application in Bihar, and its potential future implications for Indian electoral democracy.
Understanding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and the Role of the Election Commission of India (ECI)-
Understanding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is necessary before delving into the history, present, and future of the same. Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a distinctive mechanism employed by the ECI under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Unlike routine summary revisions, which are performed annually to add new voters or correct clerical errors, SIR is employed for exceptional circumstances where large errors, omissions, or political exigencies necessitate the restoration of the accuracy of the electoral rolls. The primary objective of SIR is to ensure the integrity of the electoral register by eliminating duplicate and bogus voters, especially those listed at both permanent and current addresses. Now, this organ of elections, called the electoral roll, is the cornerstone of India’s democratic process, functioning as the official list of citizens eligible to vote in a given jurisdiction. Inclusion in this register is a legal prerequisite for exercising the right to vote, which is the bloodline for any democratic setup, leading to fairness. The responsibility of maintaining, updating, and publishing these rolls falls in the entrusted hands of the Election Commission of India, ECI.
This is a body that helms the regulation of elections, and that implies that fairness and transparency go hand-in-hand. ECI stands tall with many aspirations attached to it from the Indian citizens, as voting, elections are the symbols that measure the strength of governance in any country and the vigilance rooted in the active citizens. As famously remarked by John F. Kennedy, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” ECI, established in 1950 as an independent constitutional body, runs the system where people can get a secure ground to use their right to vote from the starting point to the end. Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, stipulates that an intensive revision requires fresh preparation of rolls, as though they are being compiled for the first time.
A contemporary example is the Bihar SIR of 2025, where documents from 98.2% of the state’s 7.24 crore voters were collected as per 25th August 2025 data, and nearly 65 lakh ineligible names were deleted. The ECI has now initiated the claims and objections process, allowing voters to contest wrongful deletions. But will these contests align with the hopes of the people or remain as face-value claims?
Historical Background of SIR in India-
Tracing back to the cycle of SIR in India and how it crawled and grew, then we have to come to the 1990s, which marked a turning point in India’s democratic journey. Intensive revisions, once seen as routine roll updates, became the foundation for transformative electoral reforms. The 1992 revisions exposed glaring flaws in voter lists and set the stage for change. 1993 witnessed the visionary leadership of T.N. Seshan; India adopted the system of the Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC).⁹. This was beyond an administrative step; it brought in accountability and transparency in elections. The 1995 revision accumulated all these, streamlining photo ID distribution and reinforcing trust in electoral rolls. As the new millennium unwrapped, intensive revisions evolved with technology. The 2002 phase adopted database systems and digital coordination, while 2003 stood out for its comprehensive nature, especially in Bihar. In 2004, it was aimed at making the electoral rolls sustainable and standardised.
Bihar, which is the second most populated state in India after Uttar Pradesh, was knocked by SIR on June 24, 2025. But this sudden plan with respect to the shorter time period before the elections has been central to the legitimacy of the Indian democracy. The ECI justified the move by stating that it sensed the need to eliminate ineligible voters and illegal immigrants and address the distortions created by migration, unreported deaths, and urbanization. The rationale also rested on a larger constitutional mandate. Article 326 of the Indian Constitution restricts voting rights to Indian citizens, and the Commission argued that widespread use of Aadhaar and other non-citizenship-based documents threatened the sanctity of this principle. For this phase of SIR, the ECI prescribed 11 documents, such as birth certificates, passports, matriculation certificates, permanent residence certificates, caste certificates, etc. Surprisingly, Aadhaar, voter ID, ration cards, PAN, and MNREGA cards are excluded, and the reasoning behind this is that they do not explicitly prove citizenship. This further raises eyebrows on the democratic institutions that legitimize these documents, especially voter IDs, which already permit the voting sanctity to a citizen.
The process of execution was structured around door-to-door verification of all entries in the roll, supplemented by digital updation systems and active public participation. Voters were required to furnish proof of eligibility within a short timeline—by July 25, 2025. For those born after December 2, 2004, an additional requirement of parental citizenship documents added another layer of complexity, particularly in a state with historically low levels of birth registration.
While the Commission clarified that around 60 percent of voters (those on the 2003 roll) were exempt from additional documentation, nearly 2.93 crore voters, predominantly youth, migrants, and marginalized communities, faced significant procedural hurdles.
Implications of SIR Wave in Bihar-
The Special Intensive Revision in Bihar has invoked an intense debate among scholars, jurists, and political leaders.
Nobel Laureate economist and philosopher Amartya Sen warned that SIR risks disenfranchisement of the weaker sections of India, who need our hand to lift them up. This rigid documentation and rushed timelines are putting people’s rights at stake. He poignantly remarked, “You cannot justify seven new mistakes just to correct one.”
Senior advocate, former Union Minister, and Rajya Sabha MP, Kapil Sibal, opined that the burden of proving citizenship should rest with the state and not the voter. He labeled SIR as a veiled attempt to bring back NRC.
Political scientist and activist Yogendra Yadav states that SIR is a tectonic shift in India’s system of universal adult franchise, parallel with ‘votebandhi.’ he presented two individuals wrongly declared “dead” in the electoral rolls before the Supreme Court, highlighting serious errors in the process.
Congress MP, former UN diplomat, and author Shashi Tharoor voiced his concern that fairness in elections in Bihar is concerning now, as SIR is damaging the credibility of ECI.
The following areas are the concerning subjects in SIR:
- The Shift of Burden of Proof– Voters already registered through due process are now required to freshly prove their citizenship. Now, the citizens have to knock the BLOs and other respective heads for proving themselves as Indians just before 4 months of the state elections.
- The Legality of Special Intensive Revision– The statutory basis of the SIR is also fragile. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes no mention of “intensive” revisions, nor does it distinguish them from summary ones. The absence of a clear legislative or definitional framework raises doubts about whether the SIR has the legal authority to enforce heightened documentary requirements.
- Arbitrary and Selective Call- ECI has turned down accepting EPIC cards as proof of citizenship; it exempts all voters who were enrolled in 2003 and their children from producing such documents.
- Exclusion of Most Reliable Identity Cards– The exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards has sharpened these criticisms. Aadhaar, covering 99% of India’s adult population, is the most accessible identity document, yet the ECI insists it is not proof of citizenship—even while collecting Aadhaar numbers in SIR forms. Ration cards, rejected as prone to forgery, are ironically more widely issued and trusted than residence certificates, which continue to be accepted despite being distributed in numbers exceeding Bihar’s population. These concerns fade the public trust and signal a degree of arbitrariness and heights of bias.
- NRC-style Procedure– Though CAA 2003 is still under Supreme Court adjudication, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) has not been implemented outside Assam, the ECI, which has no statutory mandate to test citizenship in this manner, risks exceeding its authority by informally embedding NRC-style checks into voter registration, especially with a rule that the ECI requires birth details of voters and parents, borrowing from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003. SIR is justified as an attempt to clean the rolls; its legal ambiguities, inconsistent document rules, and hasty implementation may end up eroding electoral credibility rather than strengthening it. As Sen and others caution, democracy weakens not only when votes are stolen but also when citizens are excluded.
How can the Gaps in SIR be Abridged?
If not corrected, these gaps could lead to mass disenfranchisement, undermining the very roots of our democracy, as Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia rightly noted. This storm of SIR in Bihar has been developing as a barrier for the poor, homeless, migrant workers, and seasonal labourers who frequently move in search of livelihood. Exclusion of Aadhaar, ration cards, or even voter IDs creates an almost irreparable injury to their right to vote, as stated by many in their interviews. However, zooming in on another angle, instead of being seen only as a threat to disenfranchisement, this exercise can become an opportunity to strengthen trust in elections—if shaped with fairness, time, and participation. How?
The first step is to give voters ample time. Roll revisions must not be rushed in the months before an election. A systematic schedule, announced well in advance along with the helpline desks at every nook, will ensure that people can gather the required documents without anxiety and avoid last-minute exclusions.
The second one is that mobility must be respected. Migrant workers, students, and seasonal labourers are an inseparable part of India’s workforce and democracy. The system should simplify address changes, perhaps through self-declaration supported by commonly used IDs like Aadhar or voter cards. This way, mobility will not be a penalty for them.
Thirdly, the SIR process needs to be participatory, not top-down. Involving political parties, civil society, and local representatives can turn it into a collaborative exercise that will reflect the Election Commission’s role as a neutral guardian of universal suffrage rather than a biased body.
Fourthly, the series of sessions, awareness camps, and volunteering from all parties, activist groups, and NGOs is crucial and influential. Surveys already show low public knowledge about SIR; 41% of the voters are not in the loop of this exercise.
Finally, the Election Commission must reinforce its independent stature. By acting transparently, publishing reasons for deletions, and offering easy redress mechanisms, it can ensure that no voter feels invisible. This would be done when ECI runs centres for offering help to the aggrieved during this tedious process of SIR, and when ECI shows flexibility rather than rigidity in conducting this exercise. If approached in this spirit, SIR can shift from suspicion to confidence. It can evolve into a tool of democratic renewal—cleaning rolls, preventing malpractice, and above all, ensuring that every eligible Indian retains the right to vote with dignity and ease.
Conclusion-
Whether SIR is under the background of certain constitutional protections or not is indeed a subject of attention because revisions of electoral rolls are allowed in it, but how and when becomes another subject that ECI has to churn out with the help of all political parties of the democratic India, bureaucrats, officials, civil societies, committees, and, of course, the voice of the common man.
The Special Intensive Revision in Bihar is standing at a critical crossroads for Indian democracy. Its claimed intent is for the sanctity of electoral rolls and ultimately the elections, but it has been executed in a suspicious manner that has many gaps within. These gaps are further paving the path for the faded route of democracy. With the elimination of the most fundamental identity documents, hurried timelines, the burden of proof landing on the citizens, and the absence of needed steps for the larger chunk of citizens who are migrant laborers, the questions are lined up.
These questions are eroding the public trust. For SIR to truly stand on a constitutional framework, it needs to be conducted conditionally as well. However, in a democracy, the public discourse and debate, if done more healthily and cleanly, can yield solutions for any tangled-up exercise. Bihar needs practical solutions to migration, not complications in electoral politics. What matters is active citizen participation, not turning voting into a bureaucratic hurdle. For instance, allowing migrant workers and students to update their address through a simple self-declaration backed by Aadhaar or voter ID could ease their inclusion. Strengthening awareness and simplifying the process in such ways is the path to protecting democracy.
REFERENCES-
