New Delhi: The Election Commission (EC)’s order for a ‘special intensive revision’ of Bihar’s electoral rolls, just months before state elections, has caused a political and legal uproar. Opposition parties call it an attempt to disenfranchise voters, while petitioners have challenged its legality in the Supreme Court.On Thursday (July 10), the court intervened. While not stopping the revision, it directed the EC to consider accepting Aadhaar cards, voter IDs and ration cards as proof – documents the EC had originally excluded.The day before, P.D.T. Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, had argued that the EC’s plan had no basis in law. After the court’s order, The Wire spoke with him to understand the legal and democratic stakes of the revision.§Mr Achary, you argue that a ‘special intensive revision’ for an entire state isn’t even sanctioned by the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Could you explain this, as it seems to be at the heart of the argument that this is an illegal exercise?P.D.T. Achary: This is the most important point. I firmly believe the EC has no mandate under Section 21 of the RPA to conduct an intensive, special revision for an entire state.The Act allows for different kinds of revisions. The first two – before a general or by-election – are required by law. The third is a general revision the EC can order in any year, but always with a January 1 qualifying date.They seem to be using the last one: a “special revision”. But that provision is meant for one or a few constituencies with specific problems, like a large influx of people. This can happen in states like Assam, Tripura or Bihar.The law’s wording is specific: “a constituency, any constituency or a part of it.” If you can do a special revision for just part of a constituency, how can you use this for a whole state?The law also says the EC must give reasons for a special revision. A standard state-wide revision needs no special reason; it’s a normal process. The requirement for a reason proves it is for these limited, local revisions.This is my firm conviction. Even if the Supreme Court says something different, I will not accept it. This is my view. The whole exercise is illegal, and the Supreme Court can and should strike it down on this ground alone.Also read: With Aadhaar as the Only Proof, Bihar’s Musahar Community Left Clueless Amid Electoral Roll RevisionYour article in The Hindu recently laid out a strong legal case against the EC’s revision. What is your reaction to the Supreme Court’s initial order directing the EC to consider more documents? Does this address the core problem?Achary: The Supreme Court’s direction is welcome. I feel it’s almost an order for the EC; they will have to give reasons for not accepting it. But that is only one part of the problem.In my view, the whole exercise is wrong from the start. First, this revision should have been done in January. The RPA clearly states the qualifying date is January 1. The law provides no other date, simply because that is the start of the year.An electoral list already exists and was revised this year. What happened in the last six months to require this kind of revision? There have been no drastic demographic changes. The reasons the EC gave – great demographic changes over 20 years – are specious. They are not legitimate reasons to do this just months before an election. Calling it an “intensive revision” to be done in one month is a contradiction. An intensive revision, by its name, needs time.The core of this exercise seems to be determining a voter’s citizenship. You’ve argued the EC does not have the mandate to decide citizenship. Can you explain this constitutional crisis?Achary: The basic question is citizenship. And who decides that? The EC has no mandate to; the Union home ministry, which administers the Citizenship Act, does. Unfortunately, the government has given no guidance on how a person proves their citizenship.I must admit, there is some confusion here. A landmark Supreme Court case, Dalbabu Hussein vs Chief Electoral Officer (1995), said someone enrolling for the first time has the burden to prove citizenship. But for people already on the list, the officer must presume the EC was satisfied before. The burden shifts.But the general position is that the EC lacks the primary mandate. Historically, an electoral officer would send these questions to the collector for a report. Now, at enrolment, the EC must ensure the person is a citizen. If they cannot produce enough documents, they can be left out.This leads to the question: what documents? For a new voter, it would be date and place of birth. But you told me that as of 2021, only 56% of people in Bihar have a birth certificate. To force people to produce documents in a state with such poor records is a punishment. It will cause them enormous misery, especially when a revision was just done.The EC order gives discretionary power to the local electoral registration officer (ERO), who can refer someone based on suspicion or “on field reports”. What are these “field reports”, and how dangerous is this power?Achary: Yes, they have discretion. The ERO is a state official working under the EC’s direction. They can look at a person’s face, feel he is a foreigner, and send the case to a tribunal.But this idea of “field reports” is a grey area. I do not know what they mean by that; there is no mention of a “field report” in the law or rules. What field report? The officer has enumeration forms, nothing else. This is where political manoeuvring might enter. It is an undefined power that can be easily misused.The public was baffled that the EC’s initial list excluded the voter ID card it issues itself. You called this “ridiculous”. Why is that so problematic?Achary: It’s absolutely ridiculous. They are defaming themselves. This amounts to questioning their own integrity. They issued this card, and they are presumed to have checked everything, including citizenship. Once you have given that electoral card, the assumption is the person is a citizen. How can you then say that document is not acceptable? For people already on the list, the voter ID should be the only document required.As for Aadhaar, by not accepting it, government agencies are mocking themselves. They are telling citizens their own systems lack integrity. The excuse is that Aadhaar is issued to all “persons”, not just “citizens”. The constitution distinguishes between “persons” and “citizens”, who have different rights. If you have issued Aadhaar to both, you must say so clearly. The whole thing was done in such a ham-handed manner, and now that a problem has arisen, everyone is looking elsewhere.While your analysis is strictly legal, the opposition alleges this is a targeted exercise. How do you view these serious concerns?Achary: I normally steer clear of political issues. But if opposition parties have data showing this will mostly affect areas that have stood by them, then that needs to be looked into. These are serious concerns that raise questions about the integrity of the whole exercise.Looking ahead to the next Supreme Court hearing, what outcome would best uphold the integrity of our electoral process?Achary: I stand by my primary argument: the exercise is illegal and has to be stopped.If it continues, the second-best outcome is that the court may delink it from the upcoming election. This would mean the Bihar elections are held on the existing, recently revised list. This would remove the haste and hurry. After the elections, they can continue with their revision. That is what I expect from the Supreme Court.As for the EC, they will naturally tell the court that everything is clear and smooth, that people are registering, and so on. They will make it appear that everything is fine, regardless of the ground reality.