
‘Arbitrary, to be replicated in Bengal.' What pleas by ADR, Mahua challenging EC's Bihar exercise say
The origins of this case lie in a June 24 decision of the ECI, which directed the state election commission to conduct a special intensive revision of the electoral polls in Bihar.
New Delhi: Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra and Bharat Jodo Abhiyan national convener Yogendra Yadav, among others, have moved the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, saying that a similar second revision of the voters list can be replicated in the state of West Bengal, in a similar fashion.
'It is submitted that it is for the very first time in the country that such an exercise is being conducted by the ECI, where electors whose names are already there in electoral rolls and who have already voted multiple times in are being asked to prove their eligibility,' Moitra's petition contended.
Apart from this, similar petitions have been filed by non-profit organisations Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha has also filed a similar petition before the top court.
ADR's petition, which has been filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, also mentions alleged lack of due process and an 'unreasonably short timeline' for the revision exercise to take place, while adding that it could result in the removal of lakhs of genuine voters from electoral rolls leading to their disenfranchisement.
'ECI has issued unreasonable and impractical timeline to conduct SIR in Bihar with close proximity to state elections which are due in November 2025. There are lakhs of citizens who do not possess the documents as required under the SIR order, there are many who may be able to procure the documents but the short timeline mentioned in the directive may preclude them from being able to supply the same within the time period,' it argued.
Also Read: 'Worst attack' on Constitution, says Oppn after meeting EC over voter verification drive in Bihar
Mahua Moitra's petition
In her petition, Moitra also argued that the ECI's move violated provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution which state that no one can be ineligible for inclusion in a special electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex, and mandate universal adult franchise for all.
By way of her petition filed through advocate Neha Rathi, Moitra said she has information that the '(SIR) exercise is stated to be replicated in West Bengal from August 2025 for which instructions have already been given'.
Saying that such a revision of electoral rolls is a direct threat to democratic rights, Moitra's petition argued that the electoral body was acting at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was attempting to disenfranchise millions of voters, especially migrants and the economically disadvantaged.
If not set aside, the order can lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of eligible voters in the country and undermining of democracy and free and fair elections in the country, Moitra said while adding that the ECI must be restrained from issuing similar orders in other states too.
Yogendra Yadav's petition
By way of his PIL, Yadav challenged the ECI's special exercise in Bihar, saying it violated Section 22 of the RP Act, and Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, since both laws require procedural safeguards before deletion of names.
Section 22 of the 1950 Act, outlines the process for correcting, transposing, or deleting entries in electoral rolls. It states that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is allowed to make changes to electoral rolls, either on an application or on their own motion, after an inquiry. However, such changes can be made only if an entry is erroneous, or there is a change of residence within the constituency, or requires deletion in case of someone's death.
On the other hand, Rule 21-A talks about the process of including names which have inadvertently or erroneously been omitted due to some
The ECI order
ECI's June 26 order directing that an SIR be conducted requires the inclusion or retention of a voter's name in the electoral roll upon producing citizenship documents, like citizenship proof from either or both parents.
If a voter cannot furnish this, they run the risk of exclusion.
Moitra said this violates Article 326, which grants universal adult franchise to all persons, and introduces extraneous requirements which are not originally envisaged under the RP Act, 1950. The order arbitrarily excludes commonly accepted identity documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of accepted documents, which puts a 'huge burden' on the voters who are at a risk of getting disenfranchised, the petition said.
It also pointed to current field reports from the state of Bihar that confirm that lakhs of residents across rural and marginalised areas in Bihar are at an imminent risk of disenfranchisement due to these stringent and unreasonable requirements.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: ECI's voter verification drive in Bihar is tailor-made to keep Dalits, Muslims, EBCs out
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Around 68 lakh Delhi voters to face citizenship test in electoral roll revision exercise
NEW DELHI: The upcoming Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral roll is transforming into a sweeping verification exercise that will compel millions of city residents to prove their citizenship and local residency to retain their right to vote. As per officials involved in the planning, the exercise will put nearly 68 lakh voters under the scanner, effectively testing their eligibility to remain on the electoral rolls. As reported by TNIE on Sunday, July 6, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has notified March 2008 as the cut-off date for the revision, aligning Delhi's process with a similar and controversial effort already underway in Bihar. Delhi had 1.06 crore registered voters in 2008, a number that has surged to 1.56 crore in the latest electoral roll published in January this year. Over the past 17 years, officials say around 18 lakh voters have either died or migrated. A roughly equal number has been added in successive revisions, bringing the net number of new or altered entries close to 68 lakh. The figure is over 40 per cent of the current electors. 'We omit at least a lakh names every year from the rolls due to death or migration. If we consider the difference in the voter count between 2008 and now, it conservatively adds up to 70 lakh individuals whose credentials need review," said a senior poll official.


The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Polling officials involved in Bihar electoral roll revision to get Rs 6,000 honorarium
'The Rs 6,000 incentive has been approved as a mark of appreciation for the tireless service of polling staff during this crucial campaign,' said a statement issued by the CEO's office. This additional honorarium is aimed at acknowledging their hard work and commitment during the intensive revision process. Patna (Bihar) : The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) campaign of the electoral rolls in Bihar is progressing rapidly and recognizing the efforts of the Polling station officials, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar has announced a special incentive of Rs 6,000 for each. Apart from this, SIR in Bihar is underway in full swing with the Booth Level Officers (BLOs), BLO Supervisors, all the election officials, BLAs appointed by the political parties and the volunteers working tirelessly at the grassroots level to ensure that no eligible elector is left out, according to a press release by the Election Commission of India's (ECI). As per the release, as of July 5 at 6.00 PM, 1,04,16 545 Enumeration Forms, i.e. 13.19 per cent of the total of 7,89,69,844 (nearly 7.90 crore) electors in Bihar who are enrolled as of June 24, 2025, have been received. The percentage of forms distributed has also increased to 93.57 per cent, with 7,38,89,333 forms already distributed. 77,895 BLOs are going house-to-house to help the electors fill out their Enumeration Forms and collect them. In a large number of cases, the BLOs are taking live pictures of the electors and uploading them, saving the electors the trouble of getting their pictures taken. The partially filled forms are also available for download on the ECI portal ( as well as on the ECINET App, and the filled forms can be uploaded by the elector themselves on the ECINET App. Additionally, 20,603 BLOs are being appointed for the smooth and timely completion of the process. Nearly 4 lakh volunteers, including government officials, NCC cadets, NSS members, etc., are also working in the field to facilitate the elderly, PwDs, sick and vulnerable populations in the SIR process. Besides, 239 EROs, 963 AEROs, 38 DEOs and the CEO of the state are at the ground level to facilitate the electors to submit their forms. 1,54,977 Booth Level Agents (BLAs) appointed by various political parties are also providing active support in the SIR process, as per the release. This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also read: ECI's voter verification drive in Bihar is tailor-made to keep Dalits, Muslims, EBCs out


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed petitions challenging a state government order that directed steps to be taken for the merger of government primary schools. The court had clubbed two petitions filed over the issue and reserved its order on Friday after completion of arguments. The petitions were filed against the government's June 16 order, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Shiksha Department, directing merger of government schools under the supervision and control of the basic shiksha adhikaris (BSAs). The petitioners had also challenged a June 24 follow-up order, issuing a list of 105 schools for the purpose of merger. 'It is essential to add a word with regard to the National Education Policy, 2020, which includes various issues including the pairing of the schools. The policy in itself is laudible and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country. There being no material to the contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution and finding the impugned Government Orders to be in furtherance of the said objective, no interference is called for. Present petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed,' read the judgment passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia. The bench added, 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State. It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law.' In the order, the court observed that it was important to notice that the Central government had issued the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, prescribing various measures in the interest of students and for improving the infrastructure of primary schools. Various government orders have been issued, forming committees for implementation of the guidelines issued in the NEP 2020, the bench said. The court noted, 'Although not cited or argued by either of the parties, Rule 4(3) has some seminal importance as the local authority has been saddled with a responsibility of identifying a neighbourhood school where the children can be admitted and such information is to be made public; the school as referred would be a school as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), what transpires is that it is the duty of the State Government to establish schools as far as practical at a distance which is closest to the habitation, and if the same is not possible, to ensure that the children are provided facilities such as transportation etc., and for identification of a school which may be available in the neighbourhood in case the State Government cannot establish school, which would also include school other than the school established by the Government as is the mandate of Section 2(n) read with Section 12 of the RTE Act. Any other interpretation of Rule 4(1) would do violation to the statutory rule keeping in view the considerations of a large State such as the State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to availability of land and other resources and keeping in view the fiscal health of the State concerned.' It added, 'Thus, on a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) & Rule 4(3) read conjointly, it is clear that the State Government is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise.'