The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenged the Election Commission’s authority to verify voters’ citizenship during Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision, citing Supreme Court rulings. ADR criticized the exclusion of Aadhaar, alleged procedural violations, and questioned the rushed timeline ahead of elections, with the case pending further court hearings.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has challenged the Election Commission’s (EC) authority to verify voters’ citizenship in Bihar during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. In a rejoinder filed in the Supreme Court, ADR argued that the EC’s move contradicts established legal precedent and past Supreme Court rulings. Specifically, it cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which placed the burden of proving citizenship on new applicants, not those already on the rolls, and Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), which considered enrollment itself as prima facie proof of citizenship.

The EC had defended its actions under Article 326 of the Constitution, claiming it can verify citizenship and that deletion from the rolls does not equate to loss of citizenship. However, ADR said this rationale is flawed and lacks a legal basis, asserting that the SIR improperly shifts the burden of proof onto voters already registered after 2003.

The SIR, launched on June 24, has raised controversy due to its timing ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections and the requirement for post-2003 voters to submit multiple documents. The EC has demanded 11 specific documents to prove age and citizenship, but excluded Aadhaar and ration cards, despite these being widely accepted for passports and government-issued certificates. ADR called this exclusion “patently absurd,” arguing that all documents are equally susceptible to fraud.

ADR further criticized the EC for failing to explain why the standard procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the 1960 Registration of Electors Rules were bypassed. It noted that no data had been presented to justify fears of illegal voters, such as foreign nationals.

Ground-level reports also point to procedural violations. According to ADR, Block Level Officers (BLOs) often did not physically visit homes as required. Voter forms were submitted online without consent, and even deceased individuals had forms filed in their name. The lack of a clear verification process, ADR added, gives Electoral Registration Officers excessive discretion, risking large-scale disenfranchisement.

The June 24 EC order treats the 2003 electoral roll as proof of citizenship, but demands additional documentation from those born after July 1, 1987, unless their parents were listed in 2003. ADR criticized this standard as unfair and potentially disenfranchising. It also questioned why the EC has not produced the 2003 revision order, unlike a similar 2004 revision in the Northeast, which only required documents from new voters.

ADR challenged the need for a rushed SIR, particularly when a Special Summary Revision was already completed in January 2025. That revision added 12.03 lakh names and deleted 4.09 lakh, suggesting the current rolls are already updated. It noted that regular updates already cover deaths and migrations.

Lastly, ADR disputed the EC’s claim that the revision responds to political party concerns. According to ADR, no party demanded a full re-verification. Instead, concerns focused on fraudulent deletions and additions during past polls. The Supreme Court is set to hear the matter again on July 28.

By July 25, 7.23 crore forms had been submitted, with 65 lakh names slated for deletion. Voters excluded from the draft roll can file claims or objections between August 1 and September 1. The final roll is expected by September 30.