Congress leader Pawan Khera’s recent criticisms of the Special Intensive Revision (S.I.R) process in Bihar have sparked a debate about electoral integrity and the preservation of India’s sovereignty.
In a recent attack on the Election Commission of India (ECI), Congress leader Pawan Khera accused the body of undermining the democratic process through its handling of the Special Intensive Revision (S.I.R) in Bihar. Khera claimed that the ECI has been disseminating misleading information, stating that no complaints have been lodged by political parties regarding the S.I.R. He asserted that the Congress Party has submitted 89 lakh complaints about irregularities, only to have these complaints dismissed by the ECI. According to Khera, the ECI informed Congress representatives that only individual complaints would be accepted, not those from political parties.
Khera’s allegations included claims of duplicate entries on the electoral rolls and a demand for the S.I.R to be re-conducted. This rhetoric aligns with a broader strategy employed by the Congress Party, led by Rahul Gandhi, characterized by sensational accusations against the ECI that often lack substantial evidence.
In response to Khera’s assertions, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar provided a detailed rebuttal, addressing each of the Congress leader’s points. The CEO noted that District Congress Committee presidents had submitted letters to District Election Officers alleging the deletion of approximately 89 lakh names from the electoral rolls. However, the ECI clarified that objections to deletions must adhere to specific rules outlined in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The Supreme Court, in an interim order dated August 22, 2025, reinforced that objections from political parties must be submitted in the prescribed format to the relevant Electoral Registration Officer. As the objections submitted by the Congress were not compliant with these requirements, they were forwarded to the appropriate authorities for action.
Regarding allegations of duplicate voters, the Bihar CEO’s office stated that the current draft rolls are still under scrutiny and have not yet been finalized. The ECI highlighted that, unlike the Congress Party, its allies, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI-ML), had adhered to the rules, with the RJD filing ten claims through valid Booth-Level Agents (BLAs) and the CPI-ML submitting 15 claims for inclusion and 103 objections for exclusion as of August 31, 2025.
This situation underscores a perception that the Congress Party is more focused on making unsubstantiated claims than on addressing electoral integrity in a responsible manner. The party’s objections appear to be more about political maneuvering than genuine concerns for the electoral process.
According to Article 326 of the Indian Constitution, every citizen aged 18 or older is entitled to be registered as a voter. Article 324 establishes the ECI’s authority over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections. The ECI is empowered by Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to maintain accurate electoral rolls and make necessary revisions.
A Special Intensive Revision (S.I.R) differs from a summary revision, which updates existing data prior to elections. The S.I.R is intended to create a fresh electoral roll, addressing issues such as duplicate entries that have arisen due to urbanization and migration over the past two decades.
S.Y. Quraishi, a former Chief Election Commissioner, has commented on the controversy surrounding the Bihar S.I.R in various op-eds and television interviews. In an op-ed published on August 20, Quraishi praised the ECI for its efforts but called for greater transparency. He noted that while the ECI has provided detailed information about deletions, it has not disclosed the number of new voters added after this clean-up, which he deemed a significant omission.
Quraishi emphasized that public access to electoral information is crucial for democratic accountability. He argued that for an organization with the ECI’s reputation, a return to full transparency is essential for maintaining public trust in the electoral process.
On September 1, the ECI informed the Supreme Court that it had received 1,532,438 applications for first-time inclusion in the electoral roll from eligible citizens aged 18 and older. Quraishi also raised questions about the necessity of conducting a Special Intensive Revision instead of a Summary Revision, referencing an ECI order from June 24, 2025, which outlined the need for the S.I.R due to significant changes in the electoral landscape.
The S.I.R is fundamentally an exercise in sovereignty, aimed at ensuring that only legitimate citizens are included in the electoral rolls while excluding illegal immigrants. This issue is particularly pressing in regions bordering Bangladesh, such as Assam and West Bengal, and to a lesser extent, Bihar. Areas in Bihar with high Muslim populations have seen significant growth rates, raising concerns about the potential impact of illegal immigration on the electoral process.
During the S.I.R process, districts in Bihar have experienced a surge in applications for residential certificates. Bihar’s Deputy Chief Minister, Samrat Choudhary, expressed concerns that many applicants may be immigrants from neighboring countries, including Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan.
The S.I.R is a process sanctioned by Parliament under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, designed to maintain accurate electoral rolls and ensure that only legitimate Indian citizens participate in elections. Oversight by the Supreme Court further enhances the transparency and compliance of this process. While the S.I.R may have its challenges, it is crucial for safeguarding the integrity of India’s democratic framework.
Efforts by the opposition and certain activists to undermine the S.I.R through unfounded allegations not only threaten the democratic process but may also hint at a more insidious agenda. The question remains whether these actions are an attempt to preserve a vote bank that has been sustained through years of facilitating illegal immigration.
Source: Original article