Cancel 2025 polls, stop SIR: As INDIA parties march in Bihar, six key demands

The INDIA bloc’s memorandum asked for six actions. It sought Gyanesh Kumar’s immediate removal as Chief Election Commissioner and a criminal case against him. It also demanded that the 2025 Bihar Assembly election be declared invalid and held again.

The bloc wanted the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls stopped. It also sought restoration of every voter’s name removed during that process. Another demand was repeal of the 2023 law governing election commissioner appointments.

The sixth demand was an inquiry into the appointment and alleged role of Election Commission IT head Seema Khanna. The memorandum was submitted to Governor Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain and was to be sent to President Droupadi Murmu. The bloc additionally demanded ballot-paper elections nationwide.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a comprehensive review of electoral rolls. Election officials check voter records, correct errors, add eligible voters, and remove duplicate, deceased, or otherwise ineligible entries. Its purpose is to make the list used at polling stations more accurate.

Stopping an SIR would pause that verification process. In Bihar, the Opposition specifically demanded restoration of all voter names removed during the revision. That shows why the process matters: a mistaken deletion could prevent an eligible citizen from voting, while an unchecked list could retain inaccurate entries.

The article does not describe the SIR’s detailed procedures or the number of names affected. In practice, any halt would leave the existing or partially revised rolls in use until authorities decide what list governs an election. The dispute therefore concerns both voter access and confidence in the register.

Four major political groupings took part in the protest march. They were the Rashtriya Janata Dal, or RJD; the Congress; the Vikassheel Insaan Party, or VIP; and Left outfits. The report identifies these groups as participants in the INDIA bloc demonstration.

Tejashwi Yadav, the RJD’s working president and Leader of Opposition in the Bihar Assembly, led the march. Other named participants included RJD MP Misa Bharti, VIP chief Mukesh Sahani, and Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee president Rajesh Ram. Leaders and workers joined the action.

The march ended with a memorandum submitted to Bihar Governor Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain. Yadav said the Opposition had united to defend democracy and demand a fair election and a level playing field. The report also states that several leaders, including Yadav, were detained earlier.

The Election Commission of India’s central constitutional authority comes from Article 324. It gives the Commission superintendence, direction, and control over electoral rolls and elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.

This authority lets the Commission prepare and revise voter lists, set election schedules, issue instructions, appoint or deploy election officials, and supervise polling and counting. Parliament also supplies detailed rules through laws such as the Representation of the People Acts and related regulations. These laws define eligibility, registration, candidacy, and election offences.

The article focuses on demands against the Commission, including stopping Bihar’s SIR and removing CEC Gyanesh Kumar. It does not explain Article 324 or the statutes behind election administration. Under India’s legal framework, however, the Commission’s power is broad but not unlimited. Courts can review decisions, and Parliament can set the governing legal rules.

If the 2025 Bihar Assembly election were declared invalid, its results would no longer provide a valid basis for filling the Assembly seats. The Election Commission would need to organise a fresh poll under a new schedule and applicable election rules.

Candidates would have to contest again, and eligible voters would need to vote in the replacement election. Polling stations, officials, security, counting, and result certification would all be arranged again. The new contest could produce a different party balance and a different government. Any legal or administrative arrangements would depend on the order declaring the election invalid.

The article reports that Opposition parties demanded this outcome, alleging that the election was “fake” and helped the BJP win. It does not say that authorities accepted those allegations or ordered a re-election. Therefore, a fresh poll was a demand, not an announced result, at the time described.

The 2023 law changes the appointment process for India’s Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. It provides for a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The President makes the appointment on that committee’s recommendation.

Before this law, the Supreme Court had directed a different interim arrangement involving the Prime Minister, the Opposition leader, and the Chief Justice of India. The 2023 statute removed the Chief Justice from the selection committee and replaced that position with a government-nominated minister. This gives the executive a larger role in the panel.

The Bihar memorandum demanded repeal of the 2023 law. The article does not give a detailed legal argument, but the protesters linked their wider demands to election independence and a level playing field. They also demanded Kumar’s removal and an inquiry into Election Commission officials.

Some political parties prefer ballot papers because each vote produces a physical document that polling agents can inspect and recount. They may view paper as more transparent or easier for voters to understand. The article records that the INDIA bloc demanded ballot-paper elections across the country, but it does not state its technical reasons in detail.

Electronic voting machines are intended to protect votes through testing, mock polls, seals, randomisation, secure storage, polling-agent observation, and verification systems such as VVPAT. Paper ballots require controlled printing, voter secrecy, secure ballot boxes, signed records, monitored transport, and careful counting. Recounts or audits can address disputed totals.

No system is trustworthy merely because it is electronic or paper-based. Confidence depends on independent election officials, clear procedures, access for authorised observers, chain-of-custody records, complaint mechanisms, and timely review. The article presents the ballot-paper demand amid allegations of “vote theft,” but reports no official finding that the Bihar election was compromised.