‘Arbitrary, to be replicated in Bengal.' What pleas by ADR, Mahua challenging EC's Bihar exercise say

The Print

2 days ago

While Moitra argued this was a violation of the right(s) to equality, freedom of speech and expression and life, Yadav also termed the decision 'manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of electoral laws'.
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