A step away from transparency

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has introduced some new rules and revisions, including a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar before the Assembly polls. This exercise will then take place across the country.

In Bihar, the SIR exercise, aimed at removing duplicate entries in electoral rolls, started on June 25. It uses the 2003 electoral rolls as the base. The process includes door-to-door verification and new documentation requirements. The ECI aims to publish the final voters’ list by September 30.

As part of the process, voters listed in the 2003 electoral rolls — the last time that an intensive revision was done in Bihar — do not have to submit documents unless they are asked. However, those who were not on the rolls in 2003 and new applicants will have to provide proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self if they were born before July 1, 1987; proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self and of one parent if they were born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004; and proof of date and/or proof of place of birth of self and both parents if they were born after December 2, 2004.

On the surface, this seems aligned with the ECI’s broader goal of cleaning the electoral rolls and eliminating ghost voters from the voters’ list and ensuring that only eligible Indian citizens exercise their franchise, which is fundamental to a free and fair democratic process. However, there are several concerns. First, many individuals/families from poor, Dalit, Muslim, tribal, and migrant communities often lack formal birth certificates. Second, many others will struggle to produce documents for verifying their parents’ place of birth, largely due to historical gaps in State documentation.

Third, there may be lack of awareness and clarity around the new requirements. Many voters, especially in rural areas, may not fully understand which documents are needed, how to fill out forms, or where and when to submit them. With limited public outreach, complex paperwork required, and a tight timeline leading up to the final publication of the electoral rolls by September 30, there is a high risk of confusion, errors, and unintentional exclusions, particularly of those already on the margins of the system.

Fourth, the process relies heavily on field-level officials (booth level officers and electoral registration officers), who hold discretionary power. While the framework allows for claims, objections, and appeals, the initial verification and decision-making are in the hands of local officers. This may lead to inconsistencies, delays, or biased judgment, especially in areas with limited oversight.

Fifth, the ECI has neither committed to publishing the list of names being removed from the electoral rolls, nor has it provided a clear, accessible system for applicants to track the status of their submissions. This makes it difficult for citizens, civil society, and the media to monitor the process, identify errors, or challenge wrongful exclusions, raising serious questions about accountability.

The Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) post-poll survey of the National Election Study 2024 revealed a concerning trend. When respondents were asked whether they trust the ECI, 12% reported ‘not much’ and 7% reported ‘no trust at all’. In this atmosphere of suspicion, the ECI has now published a circular directing that all photos, videos, CCTV footage, and webcasts from polling stations be deleted within 45 days of the election results, unless an election petition is filed within that period. Earlier, footage and photos were retained for three months to one year, depending on the stage of polling. This new measure not only limits the time to scrutinise the material, but also shuts off avenues for transparency that existed earlier.

While steps such as the EPIC clean up and voter turnout upgrade suggest that the ECI is pushing for efficiency, actions such as deleting polling station footage prematurely, implementing new documentation rules without sufficient public awareness, and failing to disclose names removed from electoral rolls contribute to the prevailing atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion. At a time when public trust in institutions is under strain, the ECI cannot afford to be so opaque.

Krishangi Sinha is a Researcher with Lokniti-CSDS; Sanjay Kumar is Co-Director of Lokniti, and Professor at CSDS. Views are personal