PUCL Moves Supreme Court Against ECI’s Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar

New Delhi, India Reluctant to move the court in the matter since their legal provisions cannot protect the ballot as well as constitutional duties demand, which is the right to free and fair elections, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional machinery which deals with the smooth conduct of free and fair elections, is now at the center of a legal tussle over its special intensive revision of the electoral rolls underway in Bihar.

A leading human rights group People Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) has challenged the process of the ECI in the Supreme Court since it is also arbitrary and illegal and poses serious threat to the electoral democracy because it might severely affect the electoral franchise of many voters. On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear the petitions.

Justification by the ECI and the Concerns by the PUCL

Bihar Special intensive revision (SIR) was announced by ECI, under the reason of rapid urbanization, frequent migration, newly eligible voters which included young voters, non-reporting of death, and newly got the allegation of inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants were included and a thorough clean-up of the electoral roll was felt necessary.

In this case, the ECI claims that it has a constitutional duty, as proposed in Article 324, to uphold the purity of electoral rolls and to make sure that only Indian nationality is registered. The exercise has been described as the first systematic revision in Bihar since 2003, and 2003 electoral roll is considered as a presumption of citizenship unless they have any other affirmation otherwise.

The approval taken by the ECI is, however, challenged by the PUCL and other petitioners such as RJD MP, Manoj Jha and Association of Democratic Reforms, (ADR) among others. Their main interests are connected with:

• Unrealistic and Improper hurry: There was only a 30-day period given to the voters to submit documents to show that they are citizens at the time when the revision is issued and this was the monsoon time when most of the Bihar districts are hit by floods and floods-linked population displacement. Critics say that this does not give the over nine million voters time to do so since this can be quite difficult and given that the voter can be a migrant worker who might not be at his/her home.
• Burden of Proof and Documentary Requirements: Under the revision, the burden of the proof will be squarely on individuals as the bottom of the pyramid while new applications and specialized documentary presentation of citizenship will be demanded. More importantly, easily accessible files such as Aadhaar, photo identity cards of Election Commission of India (EPIC), or ration cards cannot pass off as evidence of citizenship in instances of individuals who were added to the record sections after 2003. People born after July 1, 1987, must bring a document proving the identity of one of the parents, and after December 2, 2004, documents of both parents proving their citizenship is required. According to petitioners, such strict and usually difficult to access document requirements will disproportionately impact societies already on the fringes, such as Muslims, Dalits and poor migrant workers who may not have such records.
• Similarity to NRC exercise: The PUCL and other petitioners give comparisons with the notorious National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise and note that the implication of failure to submit certain documents, unlike those under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, is the automatic exclusion of a name in the electoral list, with no sufficient procedural safety net and investigation.
• Breach of fundamental Rights: The petitions argue that the written notice issued by the ECI and the revision procedure, as a result, contravenes the fundamental rights laid down in Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of movement and residence) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. They claim that severe disenfranchisement at random conflicts with the universal right to adult suffrage securitized by Article 326.
• Effect to Migrant Workers: Bihar is endowed with considerable migration. What the petitioners bring to focus is that many migrant workers, whose names were included in the voter roll prepared in 2003, might not be able to get back to Bihar within the given time and hand in their forms and this would mean that they are automatically stricken in absence. This, they claim, is a case of systematic exclusion of Bihari mobile work-force.

Legal and Constitution and the Election Commission

The ECI is actuated by Article 324 of the Constitution that gives it the superintendence, direction, and control of elections. Moreover, under Section 21 of Representation of the people act 1950, ECI is empowered to compile and update electoral rolls. The ECI by all means can revise electoral rolls in order to make them accurate and free of irregularities but the task is on how this should be done and when.

It is a crucial part of Indian democracy to be able to vote; this right of the people is not the fundamental right but assimilated into the constitution as the Article 326 fundamental right.

This right requires an accurate electoral roll as the way to have free and fair elections. In other previous rulings the Supreme Court has stated the significance of a clean and current electoral roll, and at the same time underlined the requirements of due process and evidence of arbitrary disenfranchisement.

The Way Ahead: The Important Role of Supreme Court

The July 10, 2025 hearing of the Supreme Court will determine everything. The court will be forced to strike a balance between the appellant mandate of ensuring purity in the electoral process and the lawful right of the citizens to be involved in the electoral process and the procedural fairness spelt out in statute.

The petitioners are praying to set aside the decision of the ECI dated June 24, 2025, as it is holding the same as out rightly arbitrary and opposed to the existing laws and rules.

The case brings out the balance that exists between administrative efficiency and safeguarding of fundamental rights in a democratic framework. The resolution will have numerous implications to the future revisions of the electoral roll in the states approaching election and also what the powers of the ECI are in ensuring that a clean roll with an inclusive electoral process is carried out.