Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) notification for a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, labelling it unconstitutional and warning of potential mass disenfranchisement. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, also seeks a nationwide stay on similar voter roll revision exercises in other states, including West Bengal, citing risks to voter rights and electoral integrity.
The ECI initiated the SIR in Bihar on June 24, 2025, to update voter lists in response to urbanisation, migration, and the presence of ineligible voters, such as illegal migrants. The process involves door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to include eligible voters and remove those deemed ineligible. Moitra’s petition argues that this exercise, conducted just before the Bihar elections, violates constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), 21 (right to life), 325 (no discrimination in electoral rolls), and 326 (adult suffrage). She contends that requiring citizenship documents for voter inclusion or retention lacks legal backing and could arbitrarily strip registered voters of their rights, particularly those who have voted multiple times in past elections.
Moitra’s plea highlights the potential for misuse of the SIR process, alleging it could suppress voter rights in states like West Bengal. She has urged the Supreme Court to intervene promptly to halt the ECI’s actions, emphasising the need to protect the democratic process.
Sharing a screenshot of a news article that highlighted the ground report from villages of poll bound Bihar where several people from the economically backward regions fear they can not suffice ECI with the mandated documents apart from Aadhaar card to SIR paperwork, Moitra wrote “Govt’s spineless puppet ECI - you were created to protect our democracy not to be its pall bearer. Disenfranchising crores of poor & marginalised Indians will be the end of you. Just wait”
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter soon, given its implications for the upcoming Bihar elections and electoral processes nationwide. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has also filed a related petition, seeking greater transparency in voter turnout data, which aligns with Moitra’s broader advocacy for electoral accountability.
Moitra’s Past Petitions
Mahua Moitra, known for her vocal stance on issues of public importance, has previously moved the Supreme Court on several matters of national significance. Below are key petitions she has been involved in:
1. Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: On April 9, 2025, Moitra challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, arguing that it violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a) and (c), 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution.
2. Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023: In February 2025, Moitra supported petitions challenging the 2023 law that removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners. She argued that the executive-dominated selection committee compromised the Election Commission’s independence, violating the principle of free and fair elections.
3. Voter Turnout Data Disclosure (2019 and 2024): Moitra has been a consistent advocate for electoral transparency. In 2019, she filed a petition urging the ECI to publish voter turnout and final vote count details (Forms 17C and 20) within 48 hours of polling. In 2024, alongside ADR, she sought similar disclosures for the Lok Sabha elections, emphasising the public’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) to ensure electoral credibility.
4. Expulsion from Lok Sabha (2023): Moitra challenged her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in December 2023 over cash-for-query allegations, arguing that the process violated natural justice principles. She claimed the Ethics Committee’s inquiry lacked fairness, as she was not allowed to cross-examine complainants or defend herself adequately.
