Why is the Election Commission revising electoral rolls in Bihar, and when have revisions happened previously?

A second type of revision is a “summary” revision. This is routine annual updating, in which existing rolls are published as drafts, and citizens file claims for inclusion, deletion, or correction. There are no door-to-door visits.

A third type, “special” revision, is undertaken in exceptional cases such as missed areas, large-scale errors, or legal or political exigencies. The ECI may, under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, conduct a special revision using either summary or intensive methods, or a combination of both.

Each kind of revision has a specific purpose: intensive is for comprehensive overhaul; summary for routine maintenance; special for addressing specific deficiencies or extraordinary circumstances requiring tailored approaches.

But why is the ongoing exercise in Bihar called a special intensive revision?

The nomenclature “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) indicates that the ECI is exercising its discretionary powers under Section 21(3) of the 1950 law, which permits it to revise electoral rolls “in such manner as it thinks fit”.

For this exercise, the ECI has adopted a hybrid approach — combining door-to-door field verification that is characteristic of an intensive revision with elements of a summary revision, such as the reliance on existing electoral rolls to distribute enumeration forms.

What has set the ongoing SIR apart, however, is the introduction of a new step — the requirement of documentary proof at the enumeration stage itself. This is a striking departure from past practice.

The “special” in this intensive revision in effect signals its methodological flexibility.

But why has the ECI undertaken this exercise at the present moment — and why has Bihar been chosen for it?

The SIR is not limited to Bihar. On June 24, the ECI announced that it would carry out an intensive verification of electoral rolls across the country. This would be the first such exercise in more than two decades, and the process has begun with Bihar, where Assembly elections are due before November.

The ECI’s stated reason for the exercise is the “significant change” that has taken place in the electoral rolls over time, with large-scale additions and deletions since the last intensive revision. It has attributed these changes to rapid urbanisation, increased migration for education and livelihood, and the practice of voters enrolling at a new address without ensuring their names are deleted from the rolls of their previous residence, which can lead to duplicate entries.

This situation, according to the ECI, warrants an intensive drive to verify each person before they are enrolled as an elector. Officials have also cited the repeated complaints from political parties — including allegations of manipulation of Maharashtra’s electoral roll by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi — as a factor behind the renewed push to clean up and standardise electoral rolls.

How often has the ECI revised electoral rolls intensively, and what were the circumstances of those earlier exercises?

Intensive revisions of electoral rolls, in all or some parts of the country, have been undertaken earlier in 1952-56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Each revision has reflected the ECI’s evolving priorities — from correcting early administrative flaws to addressing migration, delimitation, and concerns over the quality of the rolls.

In the first decade after Independence, the overriding priority was to fix the rolls used for the 1951-52 Lok Sabha election, which were riddled with inaccuracies and omissions. The Commission’s narrative report of the first election noted that “the final electoral rolls were not always as accurate and satisfactory as might have been desired”.

It attributed these flaws to multiple factors: widespread public ignorance, limited organisational capacity among political parties, and inexperience in the government machinery.

One striking example was the mass exclusion of women before the first Lok Sabha election — many women refused to give their names to enumerators, and instead identified themselves only as “wife of” or “daughter of”.

Political parties, which at the time lacked both structure and familiarity with the electoral process, did not actively assist election officials. This is unlike today, where they appoint agents to aid in the preparation of the rolls.

The situation was further complicated by the absence of an electoral law in the early years, the late establishment of a central supervisory authority, and the lack of time to carry out a thorough verification.

To address these systemic shortcomings, the ECI launched a phased, rotating intensive revision strategy: one-fifth of each state was covered annually between 1952 and 1956 before the next Lok Sabha election in 1957, followed by one-third each year from 1957 to 1961 before the 1962 election, with particular attention to urban and migrant-heavy constituencies that were known for higher rates of voter movement and errors.

Administrative events like the reorganisation of states in 1956 and the delimitation exercises in the 1960s made fresh revisions of the rolls necessary.

By the 1980s, there was a growing focus on preventing the inclusion of ineligible voters, particularly foreign nationals, in the electoral roll — even as the emphasis on guarding against duplicate entries continued.

The ECI began to issue intensive revision guidelines, with specific instructions on “safeguards against inclusion of foreign nationals” — a reflection of concerns that had started to surface in the political discourse.

During this period, the Commission received multiple complaints from Chief Ministers of border states, especially in the Northeast, alleging that significant numbers of foreign nationals had managed to get themselves enrolled as voters.

The ECI at this time firmly articulated the principle that names that were already included in the electoral roll should not be deleted without following due process.

Officers were instructed to uphold the “sanctity” of the existing roll, especially when objections were raised about an elector’s citizenship status. The Commission made it clear that the burden of proof lay with the person objecting to the inclusion, and not with the elector whose name was already on the roll.

In 1993 and 1995, the ECI again ordered countrywide intensive revisions. Although 1993 was the year when Elector’s Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) were introduced under Rule 28 of the Registration of Electors Rules, ECI records from that time do not indicate that EPIC was the purpose of the revision.

Instead, the records note that EPIC details were “also captured” — suggesting that the field verification process of the revision helped facilitate, but was not driven by, the rollout of the photo ID.

Over time, as the quality of the rolls improved and administrative costs increased, the Commission gradually moved towards summary revisions as the default.

But whenever accuracy became a serious concern — due to demographic shifts, political complaints, or structural changes — the ECI returned to intensive methods, adapting them to the needs of that moment.