EC's SIR in Bihar a precursor to One Nation, One Election? Talking Sense With Srini

A sweeping exercise to revise Bihar’s electoral rolls has sparked a political uproar, with opposition parties accusing the Election Commission (EC) of orchestrating a backdoor NRC (National Register of Citizens).

In this edition of Talking Sense with Srini, The Federal’s Editor-in-Chief S Srinivasan speaks about why the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists has raised fundamental concerns about disenfranchisement, federalism, transparency, and even the meaning of citizenship itself.

Why are opposition parties calling the SIR in Bihar a political purge rather than a routine update?

Normally, the EC carries out routine revisions to purge the names of deceased voters, people who have moved, or those with duplicate registrations. These are done either continuously or in a summary revision around election time.

What’s happening in Bihar, however, is different. It’s not a typical cleanup—this is a complete re-look at the voter roll, termed SIR. That label itself is new and alarming.

Also read: Cornered by design, say Seemanchal Muslims as Bihar SIR unsettles lives | Ground report

The last intensive revision happened in 2023. Now, barely a year later, we have this “special” exercise launched only four months ahead of the elections and to be completed in just one month. That means nearly eight crore voters are expected to verify their records in that tiny window.

This makes the opposition suspect that it’s more than a voter list cleanup—it’s a fundamental reshaping of the electoral roll.

What makes the timing and conditions of this exercise problematic?

The timing is extremely odd. We are in the middle of the monsoon season. Several districts, especially in the Seemanchal region, are flooded. It’s unreasonable to expect people, many of whom are displaced or struggling, to comply with this process now.

Then there’s the issue of Bihar’s migrant workers. Nearly two crore people from Bihar work outside the state. Though the EC ran ads asking people to update their details remotely, will these workers even see those ads or understand what’s required? That’s doubtful.

Watch: INDIA bloc plans Monsoon Session strategy amid Bihar SIR showdown | Capital Beat

But the biggest red flag is the requirement that people who registered after 2003 must now furnish proof of birth, and also proof of their parents' citizenship. This turns a routine voter list update into a de facto citizenship verification exercise. It's no longer just about maintaining voter records—it’s about establishing who belongs.

Reports suggest that deletions are disproportionately affecting Muslims and migrant-heavy areas. Do you see a pattern here?

That is the real concern. The fundamental question is: Is this exercise meant to include or exclude voters?

Let’s go back to the basic principle of Indian elections. Since 1950, anyone born in India and above the age of 21 (now 18) could vote. That changed in 1987, when the then Rajiv Gandhi government amended the law to require that those born after July 1, 1987, must have at least one Indian parent to be eligible. The Vajpayee government further added that the second parent should not be an illegal immigrant.

The list finalised in 2003 became the benchmark. Now, those registered before 2003 are exempt from providing documents. But those who registered afterward—an estimated 3.8 crore voters in Bihar—must submit up to 11 documents.

Watch: ‘Bihar SIR exposé videos capture systemic forgery’ | Capital Beat

And here’s the kicker: three of the most accessible identity documents—Aadhaar, EPIC card (voter ID), and ration cards—were initially excluded from the acceptable list. These are the documents most poor and working-class people, especially migrants, actually have. In contrast, very few people in Bihar have birth certificates or passports.

This is why people and political parties have approached the Supreme Court, which has merely suggested—not ordered—that the EC consider including these documents. So, we’re talking about a process that puts a heavy burden on the most vulnerable.

The EC says 90 per cent of the work is already done. Is such speed even plausible given the complexity?

There are credible doubts about the speed. A video by journalist Ajit Anjum, now viral, shows booth-level officers (BLOs) sitting in government offices filling out forms themselves—supposedly on behalf of voters. They weren’t verifying anything house-to-house. They had the rolls from the last election and were simply copying over information.

This points to a deeper problem: BLOs have been given an impossible task—verifying nearly 8 crore voters in a month. Many people, especially in villages, didn’t even know what the forms were for. In one case, an elderly man said officials were asking if he was alive or dead.

The EC says 30 lakh names have already been deleted. But the process—printing, distributing, collecting forms, uploading documents—takes time. This kind of “efficiency” suggests the process may be deeply flawed or even fraudulent.

Watch: Bihar voter list SIR: Chandrababu Naidu objects; trouble in NDA?

Why was Aadhaar left out of the acceptable documents list when the Modi government has promoted it so heavily?

This is baffling. Aadhaar has been pushed as the single most important identity proof in India—linked to PAN cards, bank accounts, phone numbers, and even electoral rolls. The EC itself earlier insisted on linking Aadhaar to the voter ID.

Yet in this exercise, Aadhaar is excluded. Why? If Aadhaar is now considered unreliable, why has it been made mandatory in so many areas of life? There’s an inconsistency here that’s hard to justify. It raises questions about the real intent behind the document requirements.

Critics are calling this a “Digital NRC” by stealth. Is that comparison valid?

That’s a legitimate concern. NRC currently applies only to Assam. It was intended to identify illegal immigrants. Though a nationwide NRC was passed by Parliament, it hasn’t been notified yet due to widespread opposition.

So now, the fear is that the EC is trying to do the same thing indirectly. Remember, the EC is not empowered to verify citizenship. Its job is to register voters. But by asking for documents that prove birth and parental citizenship, it's wading into a domain it has no mandate for. That’s the crux of the fear—that this is NRC in another name.

Watch: ‘Likely intent behind Bihar voter roll revision is to shrink electorate’ | Capital Beat

Could this “pilot project” in Bihar be rolled out nationally? Is this linked to the push for One Nation, One Election?

Yes, that appears to be the plan. The EC has already said this is a pilot project. Other states, especially those going to polls soon—like Tamil Nadu—may be next.

There’s talk that this may be a precursor to One Nation, One Election. That would require syncing electoral rolls across states. But voter rolls are normally prepared by state election commissions. So, this raises federal concerns. Will states have a say? Will their objections be heard? These are open questions.

Is this shift a philosophical reversal of how elections were meant to work in India?

Absolutely. Let me quote Yogendra Yadav, who cited Anupama Roy’s concept of “encompassment”—the idea that Indian democracy should include as many people as possible. From the beginning, the burden of proof was on the state, not on citizens. The EC’s job was to ensure that no one was left out.

Now, the burden has shifted. Citizens must prove that they belong. This is a dangerous inversion of democratic principles. It undermines the philosophy of universal franchise and moves us toward suspicion and exclusion.

The EC has faced criticism over multiple issues. Has its credibility suffered?

Undoubtedly. The EC used to pride itself on impartiality and inclusiveness. But over the years, controversies have mounted—from the way election commissioners are selected to how symbols are allocated and hate speech is handled during campaigns.

Also read: Bihar voter enumeration gets murkier as EC begins listing without documents

Now, with this SIR, its image has taken another hit. Earlier, a panel comprising the prime minister, the leader of opposition, and chief justice of India selected EC members. Now, the judiciary has been replaced by the home minister—stacking the panel with two executive members against one from the opposition. That reduces public trust.

This exercise is a real litmus test. If the EC wants to restore its credibility, it must take bold steps to ensure transparency and fairness.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.