Between Its Ambiguities and Inconsistencies, the EC's Bihar SIR Data is Virtually Unverifiable
New Delhi: For an electoral roll revision to be considered legitimate, its processes and data must be transparent, consistent and allow for a clear, logical audit. An analysis of the data released by the Election Commission (EC) during and after the special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar reveals several procedural ambiguities and statistical inconsistencies.
These factors, when taken together, make a full, independent verification of the process exceptionally difficult.
The systemic ambiguity of Form 6
At the heart of the procedural opacity is Form 6, the single application used for all additions to the electoral roll. The EC's practice of not differentiating between the types of applicants using this form is a systemic issue that was evident both before and during the SIR.
Between the January 2025 summary revision (which listed the electorate at 7.8 crore) and the start of the SIR on June 24 (when the electorate was 7.89 crore), 9 lakh electors were added.
Due to the universal use of Form 6 for both newly eligible 18-year-olds as well as older, previously unregistered citizens, it is not possible from the available data to determine the demographic makeup of these additions.
The final bulletin states that 21.53 lakh electors were added via Form 6. During the SIR, this single form served two distinct functions: one, for enrolling new voters or first-time applicants, and two, for reincluding those individuals from the pool of 68.66 lakh removed voters who had to file a claim to get their name back on the list.
The EC has not provided a breakdown of the 21.53 lakh figure into these two categories. Without this, it is impossible to independently ascertain how many of Bihar's 20.62 lakh newly eligible young voters were enrolled versus how many previously registered voters were simply reinstated.
Black box of adjudication and ‘disposal’
The confusion deepens when analysing the data on the adjudication of claims and objections.
The EC's daily bulletin from September 1 used the term “disposal" to refer to the final adjudication of an application. On the final day for filing, out of 16,56,886 applications from new voters (row D), only 91,462 (5.5%) had been “disposed of".
Similarly, out of 2,53,524 claims and objections filed directly by electors (row C, combining 36,475 applications for inclusion and 2,17,049 for exclusion), only 40,630 (16%) had been adjudicated upon. This suggests a colossal backlog of over 1.7 million cases awaiting adjudication, raising questions about the timeline and capacity for due process over the rest of September.
The bulletin did not specify the outcome of the disposed cases (how many were accepted versus rejected), making an assessment of the process's fairness impossible based on that data.
Irreconcilable final numbers
Now, one might expect the final report from September 30 to resolve this ambiguity. Instead, it compounds it by presenting totals that do not logically follow from the number of applications received.
Take additions. The total number of applications for inclusion received by September 1 was 16,93,386 (16,56,886 from new voters + 36,475 in claims from electors + 25 from parties). The final report on September 30, however, states that 21.53 lakh (21,53,000) electors were added. This represents an unexplained surplus of 4,59,614 (21,53,000 - 16,93,386) additions.
The final number of accepted applicants is significantly higher than the total number of applications reported as received.
Similarly, the removals. The total number of objections filed against names on the draft roll by September 1 was 2,17,168 (2,17,049 in objections from electors + 119 from parties). The final report, however, states that 3.66 lakh (3,66,000) electors were removed from that draft list. This represents an unexplained surplus of 1,48,832 (3,66,000 - 2,17,168) removals.
The final number of removals is substantially higher than the number of formal objections filed.
So, the procedural trail of the SIR is marked by layers of opacity. The systemic ambiguity of Form 6 makes it impossible to understand the nature of the additions. The opaque “disposal" data from September 1, showing a massive backlog, obscures the process of adjudication. Finally, the final numbers from September 30 are statistically inconsistent with the initial pool of applications, making the outcome itself unverifiable.
These factors combine to create a process that is fundamentally resistant to a complete and independent audit, leaving critical questions about its mechanics and fairness that are unanswered by the available data.
This article went live on October second, two thousand twenty five, at fifty-four minutes past three in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
