The Election Commission of India (ECI) has asserted in a counter-affidavit filed with the Supreme Court that the public was asked for proof of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar in 2003. A thorough examination of the Election Commission’s own historical documents and current news sources, however, presents a completely different image.
Voters were not requested to provide any citizenship credentials in 2003, according to two important documents: a press release from the Election Commission on October 6, 2003, and a news article titled “Public Verification of Electoral Rolls” published by India Together on August 1, 2003.
What Was in the Press Note from the Election Commission?
The Election Commission included a section titled “Improvement in Electoral Rolls” in its press release dated October 6, 2003, which was titled “Schedule for General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, NCT of Delhi, and Rajasthan and Bye-Elections to Fill Casual Vacancies in State Legislative Assemblies.”
The memo stated that 27 states and union territories, including Bihar, would be participating in a two-year (2002–2003) effort for Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls. It said:
Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Lakshadweep, and Pondicherry all underwent extensive electoral roll revisions in 2002. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttaranchal, and Uttar Pradesh all underwent the same procedure in 2003.
More significantly, the following was the explanation of the methodology:
“Voters were surveyed door-to-door throughout this process.”
During this process, there was no indication that any citizenship documents were needed.
Rather, the Commission highlighted the involvement of citizens:
For the first time, the Commission made an attempt to disseminate and publicise electoral rolls locally in order to increase public participation throughout the verification process. Copies of the voter lists were sent to local authorities well in advance so that they could be verified by actively involving citizens.
The five unnamed governments’ review process was explained in another paragraph:
The names of those on the voter lists were read aloud in meetings held by the chief electoral officers of the five states in rural villages and ward assemblies and in urban areas through Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and other venues. Names were changed, deleted, or added in accordance with the guidelines after local verification.
The 2003 news item provides further information, assuming that these states were the ones mentioned in the press note title.
What Was Said in the News Article?
In an August 1, 2003, India Together article, then-Chief Election Commissioner James Michael Lyngdoh, State Election Commissioner I.J. Khanna, and roughly fifty non-governmental organisations met in Jaipur. The objective is to purify the electoral rolls in advance of the Rajasthani elections.
It was suggested unanimously that:
“In both rural and urban areas, voter rolls can be verified by the public by being read out in local bodies like ward and village assemblies and other neighbourhood committees.”
On August 6, 2003, the Election Commission swiftly rolled out a directive to five states—Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Mizoram—to ensure better oversight of voter lists.
The article quoted the order:
“New instructions will be released shortly, and long-term reforms will include modifications to procedures and guidelines for upcoming extensive upgrades. But since your states are holding elections this year, the Commission orders that the following short-term steps be strictly followed in order to increase the validity of the current electoral rolls. The Commission has made the decision to use responsible organisations and elected local entities to publicise the electoral rolls. Full voter lists for relevant areas will be read out in public meetings.”
Once more, the requirement for citizenship documents was not mentioned. Rather, the focus was on community-level verification and public transparency.
It’s interesting to note that the story contained a hyperlink to the Commission’s directive, yet the ECI’s official website no longer has the linked page.
What has changed in 2025, then?
The documents unequivocally demonstrate that the Election Commission did not require voters to provide evidence of citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision that was carried out in Bihar and 27 other states and union territories in 2003–2004.
This poses a number of open-ended questions:
Why is the Election Commission suddenly requesting this evidence in the Bihar SIR for 2025? Why hasn’t the Commission made the order publicly available if it has previously issued a directive mandating such documents? Is it currently available on the ECI website? And in order to put an end to all rumours and debate, shouldn’t the Election Commission make the order public if it exists?