Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Dec 16: As notices begin going out to electors with the publication of draft electoral rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in five states and Union Territories, a procedural issue flagged during the Bihar exercise has triggered concern within the election machinery.

During the final weeks of the Bihar SIR in September, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) across the state reportedly found pre-filled notices appearing on their individual log-ins on the Election Commission of India’s centralised portal. These notices were addressed to electors who had already submitted their forms and supporting documents and whose names were included in the draft rolls published in August.

Although the notices carried the names of the concerned EROs, they were not generated by them. Officials estimate that the number of such notices ran into lakhs, though no official figure has been provided by the Election Commission.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, only the ERO of an Assembly constituency is empowered to raise doubts over an elector’s eligibility and issue a notice seeking a hearing. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had reiterated this principle at an August 17 press conference, describing electoral revision as a decentralised process and stating that additions or deletions to electoral rolls can only be made by following the prescribed legal procedure.

Against this backdrop, the Bihar episode raised eyebrows among several EROs, many of whom reportedly chose not to act on the notices. Officials said the development did not result in large-scale deletions. Of the 68.66 lakh deletions recorded during the Bihar revision, only 9,968 remain unexplained, while the rest were attributed to reasons such as death, migration, duplication or prolonged absence.

However, the manner in which the notices were generated and routed has raised questions about jurisdiction and accountability during a sensitive phase of the revision process. Five Bihar government officials associated with the exercise said the notices began appearing on ERO log-ins in the days leading up to the September 25 deadline for disposal of claims and objections. The notices were meant to be signed by the ERO or Assistant ERO and served on electors through Booth Level Officers.

During field visits to Patna and Siwan, several such notices were found in a uniform, pre-filled Hindi format, containing the elector’s name, EPIC number, Assembly constituency, booth number, serial number and address, and directing the elector to appear before the ERO with documents to establish eligibility.

While Election Commission officials said the notices were generated after identifying “logical discrepancies” in submitted forms or documents, the process itself has drawn scrutiny. Unlike earlier formats that required EROs to record reasons manually, these notices arrived pre-populated, with a tick against the same reason — incomplete or deficient documents — and without a visible date of issue.

The Election Commission did not respond to queries on the matter, while the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer was unavailable for comment. In several cases, including that of RJD MLA Osama Shahab from Siwan, names were ultimately retained after documents were resubmitted, with officials describing the issues as technical.

Though the episode did not alter final rolls in most cases, it has highlighted concerns over procedural propriety and the need to clearly define authority in the voter revision process.