When the Election Commission (EC) announced a “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls on June 24, it cited the need to ensure that all electors on the revised roll meet the eligibility criteria of age and citizenship — including those who were added after 2003, the year the last intensive revision was undertaken in the state.ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEOBut barely a year earlier, when the question of alleged illegal immigrants became a flashpoint during the Assembly elections in neighbouring Jharkhand, the poll panel’s top official in the state had defended the EC’s “elaborate provisions” for preparing electoral rolls — particularly those relating to citizenship. Incidentally, the last intensive revision in Jharkhand was also conducted in 2003, the same year as Bihar.In fact, in an affidavit filed in the Jharkhand High Court on September 3, 2024, in a case involving alleged illegal immigrants obtaining identity documents, including Voter ID cards, the state’s Chief Electoral Officer, K Ravi Kumar, cited the EC’s instructions on the routine preparation and revision of electoral rolls to argue that the Commission had established “clear safeguards” to prevent the enrolment of ineligible persons.However, in the same affidavit, the Jharkhand CEO also underlined the limits of an Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO’s) powers to question or initiate an inquiry into an individual’s citizenship — especially “in the absence of any credible allegation and the existence of legitimate government-issued documents.” The affidavit said that in case of any doubt regarding an applicant’s citizenship, the ERO could consult the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) before making a decision, and in case of an objection filed in the form of Form 7, the burden of proof initially lay with the objector.The High Court was hearing a case filed by Danyaal Danish, a Jharkhand resident and BJP worker, who sought action against alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh. In August 2024, the court had asked the Union and State government entities concerned to file affidavits on the steps taken to deal with the issue.Read | In Bihar, EC doesn’t follow its own practice, puts burden of proof on voters, ignores existing rollsThe CEO’s affidavit provided a detailed explanation of the processes followed by EROs, while underlining that it is the Union government, through the MHA, that can determine citizenship.“…it is respectfully submitted that the Election Commission of India has formulated elaborate provisions regarding entry of names during preparation of electoral roll, and deletion of names on objection or doubt about their citizenship have been incorporated in the election laws and manual,” the affidavit said.Story continues below this adThe CEO said the Commission had established “clear safeguards” to prevent enrolment of ineligible persons as per its Manual on Electoral Roll, 2023. According to this manual, the ERO has to satisfy himself or herself that an applicant is an Indian citizen. On the documents that the ERO can rely on, the manual says, though there is no standard and uniform document, an illustrative list of documents that “could” be referred to comprises “National Register of Citizens, wherever it exists, citizenship certificate issued by a competent authority, a valid passport issued by Government of India and birth certificate.”The affidavit further said that in case of any doubt, the ERO should refer the matter to the MHA to determine as per the Citizenship Act. In case of an objection to an elector on the rolls, it has to be filed in a Form 7. “In case of an objection filed in Form 7 seeking deletion of name from the electoral roll on the ground that the person objected to is not a citizen of India, the onus of proof shall initially lie on the objector. This is a shifting burden of proof…Therefore, the Electoral Registration Officer would justifiably require the person concerned, to show evidence that he is a citizen of India,” the affidavit said.Importantly, the affidavit said: “In the absence of any credible allegation and the existence of legitimate government-issued documents, the ERO’s authority to question or initiate enquiry into an individual’s citizenship becomes restricted…Further, should there be any reason to suspect that any of the certificates produced by the applicant is bogus or issued without due care, the ERO is instructed, as per paragraph 7.4.1. of Chapter 7 of the Manual on Electoral Rolls to [refer to] the authorities that issued that certificate. This is another effective mechanism prescribed for dealing with the issue of illegal migration.”In this case, the CEO said, the petitioner had not filed any Form 7, and in case any were filed in the future, the ERO would take appropriate action after due inquiry. The affidavit, however, did mention that the District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Sahibganj had received a complaint on August 27, 2024, from Kartik Kumar Saha, former BJP district president, alleging that 71 electors who had EPIC cards were allegedly Bangladeshis and therefore ineligible to be on the rolls.Story continues below this adWhen reached for comment on the complaint, the Jharkhand CEO declined to comment, saying the matter was sub-judice. The District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Sahibganj, Hemant Sati, said an inquiry had been conducted into the allegations levelled against the 71 electors and the report submitted to the court. He said all the electors concerned had been living in the state for 30-40 years and were found to have valid government documents like Aadhaar cards. Many had even availed benefits of government schemes like PM Awas Yojana.While hearing the petition last year, the High Court had asked the Deputy Commissioners of six districts — Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar — where “majority of infiltrators” were reported, to submit affidavits giving details of such individuals “after going through their Aadhaar Cards, Voter Cards and by comparing with the Record of Rights to establish their residency in the area which falls under the Santhal Pargana region”, as per a September 20, 2024 order.Barring Sahibganj, all DCs disputed the allegation that illegal immigrants were present in their districts. The court had then asked the state and Union governments to form a fact-finding committee, which was challenged by the Jharkhand government in the Supreme Court. The matter is pending in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.As per the EC’s June 24 order, all 7.8 crore existing electors in Bihar must fill out enumeration forms by July 25 to be included in the draft roll, which is scheduled for publication on August 1. In addition, voters who were added to the rolls after January 1, 2003 — the year of the last intensive revision — are required to submit documents to establish their eligibility, including proof of citizenship.Story continues below this adOpposition parties and civil society groups have raised concerns that the exercise could disenfranchise genuine electors. The EC’s decision to conduct the SIR has been challenged through multiple petitions in the Supreme Court, which has asked the Commission to file its response by July 21.