Bihar’s Living Dead: The Voter Crisis in ECI's SIR Draft 2025
EC's SIR list in Bihar marks living voters as dead, sparking questions on electoral integrity.
advertisement
In multiple districts across Bihar, voters are finding themselves erased from electoral records, not because they moved, not because they died, but because they were declared dead in the first draft of the voter list under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 process without proper verification. In this episode of Janab Aise Kaise, we talk to a few of those people and try to understand the transparency and accountability of the voting process in the largest democracy of the world.
Take Imarti Devi from Patna’s Phulwari area. Her husband says they submitted all documents to the Booth Level Officer (BLO) during the SIR process. Yet only his name remains on the voter list, hers appears in the “deceased” column.
Ramdev Paswan and Jeevchi Devi from Araria’s Ward 6, both long-time voters. Ramdev says he’s voted in every election, including 2024. He was out of town when the forms were being filled. But no notice, no hearing, just a sudden disappearance from the rolls.
This isn’t a one-off error. In Sitamarhi, a 22-year-old man was listed as dead. When contacted, the BLO admitted casually that he was marked dead because they were told that he's dead. When asked about death certificates, he responded that they were not instructed to ask for them.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Section 22) and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (Section 19–21), any name removal must follow due process: a notice must be served, and the individual must be given a chance to respond.
So how were people removed without notice? Why were no death certificates demanded? Is this negligence, or a systemic failure?
Even more disturbing is the Election Commission’s posture. In its daily bulletins on the SIR 2025 process, the EC claims that no political party has submitted objections or claims.
But this raises another critical question: What qualifies as a legitimate objection?
The Commission now says that unless political parties submit objections using a specific “Prescribed Declaration Form,” their complaints don’t count. This form, however, was never shared publicly until August 18, 2025, ,many days after the SIR process began.
Why was this form made public so late? Why didn’t the EC communicate it clearly to political parties from the outset? Was this poor planning, or a deliberate delay?
When asked why they haven’t filed objections, parties like RJD and CPI-ML shared multiple documents showing they had indeed submitted complaints. Some even bear official receiving stamps. Yet the EC insists these don’t qualify because they weren’t submitted in the correct format.
Even District Magistrates across Bihar admit that complaints without the prescribed form won’t be accepted. But that opens a series of troubling questions that the EC has to answer.
There’s more. Consider this: In 2019, within just four months of the Lok Sabha elections, VVPAT slips were destroyed, despite Rule 94(b) of the 1961 election rules, which mandates preservation for at least a year. If the Commission can disregard such legal mandates, how should a common citizen feel confident enough to trust their process?
A recent survey by Lokniti–CSDS (July–August 2025) found that only 28.6% of respondents have strong faith in the Election Commission. Many believe it functions under the pressure of the central government.
This crisis isn't just about a few wrongful deletions. It’s about the integrity of elections and the right to vote. The ball is now in the Election Commission’s court. Will it restore public faith by ensuring transparency, correcting wrongs, and communicating clearly? Or will it continue to operate behind procedural smokescreens and push back against valid questions?
Because if the system can call a living voter dead, what does that say about the health of our democracy?