In 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducted the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. It made news. Those on the Left said it was the ‘biggest disenfranchisement exercise’. Now, with some members of the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) approaching the Supreme Court of India against the SIR in West Bengal, The Dossier thought it would be a good idea to do a series specifically on the SIR. In this three-part series, we will dive into the history and constitutionality of this exercise. Then, explore the arguments made against the Bihar SIR, what the SC said on them, and finally examine the objections made to the West Bengal SIR, and whether those objections make any sense, to see whether the opposition to this exercise holds water or their bucket is broken. This is part two of the three-part series.
What began as a routine administrative exercise evolved into a constitutional controversy over the ‘very much constitutional’ process in Bihar. All this started when, in early July 2025, the Supreme Court of India (SC) was approached by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) along with Swaraj Party member Yogendra Yadav and others and multiple petitions were filed under Article 32, challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI) on its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar before that year’s state election.
The allegations in the petitions were not that electoral rolls should never be revised, but the argument was that this particular revision had crossed a line, something that turned out to be vague later, and which even the SC sidelined. Also argued was that this process effectively shifted the burden of proof onto citizens. One wonders if a citizen will not prove his citizenship, who else will or even be able to?
Initially, Aadhaar and ration cards were not recognised in the prior restrictive list of acceptable documents by the ECI. In many cases, proof of a parent’s identity was required. This was challenged by the petitioners that, for a state like Bihar, where documentation gaps are more common and migration is routine, this was not a minor procedural demand. It was, they argued, a risk of huge disenfranchisement.
As a result, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the ECI to treat Aadhaar as a valid identity document – effectively adding it to the list of acceptable proofs. This was an interim direction. The SC said that this single direction would expand access for millions. Access, that’s fine. I don’t have any issues with that. But what about the fraud? Aren’t we aware of the many Aadhaar card frauds in recent years?
In December 2023, the police in Una town of Gir-Somnath district in Gujarat busted a bogus Aadhaar card centre where three individuals had issued nearly 1,300 Aadhaar cards using forged documents such as fake birth certificates, marriage certificates and address proofs. The accused reportedly collected around Rs 17 lakh by illegally facilitating Aadhaar modifications and registrations through fabricated documents.
Then, in August 2025, another case was seen in Uttar Pradesh (UP) in which the UP Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) uncovered an interstate network involved in producing fake Aadhar cards, resulting in multiple arrests. The racket involved generating Aadhaar-linked identities through forged documents and manipulating verification processes across states.
A year before this, in 2024, a major fraud was exposed in the Sareni block of Raebareli, where a network involving over 50,000 fake Aadhaar cards was uncovered. In total 18 individuals were arrested, and the racket operated with the collusion of Jan Seva Kendra operators and a village secretary.
And who doesn’t remember Shanta Paul, a 28-year-old Bangladeshi national living in India using fake Aadhaar cards, a voter ID, and a ration card. Paul was arrested in August 2025. The list is endless.
So, although the Aadhar card is widely held and useful as an identification document, its authenticity has been compromised through organised fraud networks. In all, forging Aadhar is no big deal.
There I say: if a foundational document itself can be fraudulently obtained, its evidentiary value in determining voter identity or citizenship must be approached with caution. Else, getting citizenship becomes like getting a lollipop – less value and more consumption.
That the timeline was unrealistic and vague and about one lakh Booth Level Officers (BLOs) would be needed, and around 20,000 to be appointed in order to complete the exercise, said the petitioners in the matter.
The SIR was completed with 77,895 BLOs and more than 4 lakh volunteers assisting elderly, differently-abled, sick, and vulnerable voters. Additionally, around 1.56 lakh Booth Level Agents (BLAs) appointed by recognised political parties were also a part of the exercise. I will leave it to you to decide whether the petitioners ‘arguments were fulfilled or not. The petitioners also alleged that over 65 lakh voters were excluded in draft rolls, but the final figure of deletions stood at roughly 3.66 lakh.
Two questions were laid by the SC in the matter. First, does Article 324 permit such ‘special’ intensive revisions, and can the burden of proving citizenship be placed on voters in this manner? Second, whether, in practice, the SIR violated constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
Article 324 (1) of the Constitution says, ‘The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission)’.
‘The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls’ rests with the ECI as per the Constitution. But then, interpretation in itself is another game.
What welcoming was that the SC refused to stay the SIR. It allowed the ECI to continue the process, describing the revision of rolls as part of its constitutional mandate. Indeed, it is. The judgement, too, has been reserved in this matter.
Now, if you think this issue remains confined to Bihar, you are wrong. On 4 February 2026, Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, challenged a similar SIR exercise in West Bengal and filed a petition. We’ll be going into it in-depth in the next and last piece of this series.
But what we must be aware of is that the SC has previously recognised the wide scope of ECI’s power in cases such as Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commission of India vs Ashok Kumar, where it was held that Article 324 gives the Commission ‘plenary powers’ to ensure free and fair elections.
So, it wasn’t like the ECI had the absence of authority, but it’s the interpretation that keeps on consuming significant judicial time, another reason for over 80,000 cases pending in the apex court.
