SIR: Law Says Only Local Officials Can Issue Notices to Electors — In Bihar, Central EC Sent Pre-Filled Notices.

The ongoing controversy around the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has brought a key legal question into sharp focus: who is authorised under law to issue notices to electors? Election rules clearly assign this power to local election officials, yet reports from Bihar suggest that pre-filled notices were issued under the direction of the central Election Commission, raising concerns over procedure, authority, and voter rights.

What the law provides

Under the Representation of the People Act and the Election Registration Rules, notices related to inclusion, deletion, or verification of voter details are to be issued by:

  • The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or

  • The Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO)

These officials are locally appointed and are expected to exercise discretion based on ground-level verification. The intent is to ensure accountability, familiarity with local voters, and protection against arbitrary action.

What happened in Bihar

During the SIR exercise in Bihar, electors reportedly received pre-filled notices, many of which were generated centrally and distributed en masse. In several cases, voters claimed:

  • They were asked to prove eligibility despite long-standing registration

  • Notices lacked specific local verification inputs

  • Booth-level officers had little clarity on why particular names were flagged

This has raised questions about whether the legally mandated local discretion was bypassed.

Why pre-filled notices are controversial

Critics argue that pre-filled notices reverse the burden of proof by placing the onus on voters without:

  • Clear reasons for verification

  • Individualised scrutiny by local officials

  • Transparency in data sources used

Such an approach, they say, risks treating voter verification as a mechanical exercise rather than a legally sensitive process.

Election Commission’s rationale

The Election Commission has maintained that centralised data tools are necessary to:

  • Remove duplicate entries

  • Improve roll accuracy

  • Standardise procedures across states

Officials argue that notices are still issued “through” local officers, even if generated using central databases.

Opposition and civil society concerns

Opposition parties and voter rights groups contend that:

  • Centralised issuance weakens statutory safeguards

  • It opens the door to selective or large-scale exclusion

  • It may disproportionately affect vulnerable or migrant populations

They argue that legality hinges not just on who signs a notice, but who applies judgment before issuing it.

Why this matters

Electoral rolls are the foundation of democratic participation. Any process that appears to dilute local oversight or automate voter scrutiny risks undermining public trust — even if well-intentioned.

The larger question

The Bihar SIR episode highlights a broader tension between efficiency and legality. While technology can help clean voter rolls, it cannot replace statutory roles designed to protect electoral fairness.

Bottom line

If the law mandates that only local election officials issue notices based on individual assessment, then the use of centrally generated, pre-filled notices — even under EC supervision — raises serious procedural questions. How this balance is resolved could shape future voter verification exercises across India.

प्रातिक्रिया दे

आपका ईमेल पता प्रकाशित नहीं किया जाएगा. आवश्यक फ़ील्ड चिह्नित हैं *

hi_INHindi