The political landscape in Bihar has been anything but quiet in recent months, as two stories—one about the deepening involvement of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) in the electoral roll revision process and another concerning the absence of opposition leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav from the assembly—have sparked intense debate and scrutiny. Both developments are unfolding against the backdrop of Bihar’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process that has not only brought new faces to the forefront but also raised questions about transparency, fairness, and the very nature of political engagement in the state.
In April 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) took an unprecedented step by organizing a two-day training program for BLAs from Bihar in New Delhi. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, along with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, addressed the gathering, underscoring the crucial role that booth-level functionaries play in the democratic process. According to The Hindu, this workshop was a direct result of discussions at the Chief Electoral Officers’ conference held in March of the same year. BLAs—grassroots representatives nominated by political parties—were briefed on the intricacies of preparing, updating, and revising electoral rolls, as well as how to utilize the appeals process under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in case of grievances.
What might have seemed like a routine training session at the time now appears almost prophetic. Just a few months later, the SIR was launched in Bihar, and BLAs found themselves at the heart of the action. Their involvement has since expanded further, with Phase II of the SIR, currently underway in nine states and three Union Territories, seeing more than 1.24 million BLAs nominated by various parties to participate across 533,000 polling booths, according to ECI figures shared on December 4.
The idea of BLAs is not entirely new. Introduced by the ECI in 2008, the concept aimed to encourage robust participation by recognized political parties in the revision of electoral rolls at the booth level. According to the Commission’s Manual on Electoral Rolls—2023, a BLA must be a registered voter in the relevant part of the electoral roll, with responsibilities ranging from scrutinizing entries in the draft roll to identifying deceased or shifted voters through house-to-house surveys. The instructions issued on June 24, 2025, for the SIR in Bihar emphasized “engagement with political parties and sharing of electoral rolls,” laying out specific steps for BLA involvement and even allowing for the bulk submission of applications, albeit with limits to prevent abuse.
One significant change came on November 11, when the ECI modified the criteria for BLA appointments. If political parties struggled to find a BLA registered in the exact polling area, they could now appoint someone from the same Assembly constituency. This seemingly minor tweak has had outsized political consequences, especially in states like West Bengal, where the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) accused the ECI of favoring the BJP, which, according to TMC, lacked grassroots manpower in the field. The BJP, for its part, welcomed the move.
The numbers tell a story of their own. In Bihar, the number of BLAs surged by 16% during the SIR, reaching around 160,000, each assigned to one of the state’s 77,895 polling booths. In Uttar Pradesh, as of November 28, the BJP had appointed 159,000 BLAs, the Samajwadi Party 142,000, and the Bahujan Samaj Party 138,000. The Congress, hampered by a dwindling organizational base, managed just over 49,000. This disparity has fueled concerns about partisan advantage. As activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan told The Hindu, “In Bihar, we saw that only the BJP had BLAs in a majority of the booths. It is difficult for many parties to get honest, unpaid BLAs in every polling booth. Only those parties which have a lot of money can do that, like the BJP.”
Such inequalities have led to broader debates about the wisdom of placing so much responsibility on party-nominated BLAs. While their presence is intended to promote transparency and collaboration, critics argue that it may instead entrench partisan interests. Major General Anil Verma (retired), head of the Association for Democratic Reforms, remarked, “It is ironic that the ECI is tasking BLAs with the job of BLOs and the Supreme Court has not only supported it but castigated the political parties for not helping in enumeration. We conveniently forget that the role of BLAs is problematic as their actions are guided by political competition and expediency.” He added, “BLAs can file claims and objections and they have an important role as regards informing the BLO about voters who are dead or have shifted. This is significant if seen in the context of complaints about names getting deleted from the voters’ list without the proper procedure being followed. So there is a question mark over the role of BLAs.”
Meanwhile, Bihar’s political drama has been further fueled by the conspicuous absence of opposition leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav from the assembly. On December 5, NDA leaders accused Tejashwi of traveling to Europe for a "picnic" with a "history-sheeter" while the assembly session was ongoing. JD(U) lawmaker Neeraj Kumar publicly demanded that Tejashwi disclose his whereabouts, companions, and whether he had secured court permission for his foreign travel—a requirement stemming from the Delhi High Court’s directions in the land-for-jobs case. The court had previously allowed Tejashwi to travel abroad three times, but his current trip has raised eyebrows, especially since he missed three consecutive days of House proceedings and was present only on December 2 to welcome the new Speaker, Prem Kumar.
BJP parliamentarian Sanjay Jaiswal didn’t mince words, claiming, “Only two persons can do this — one Rahul Gandhi and the other is Tejashwi. Elections are just a mid-term hobby for both. They get active during election time and flee outside the country after they are over.” The RJD, for its part, has remained vague about Tejashwi’s whereabouts. Spokesperson Ejaz Ali Ahmad countered, “One should not pry into anyone’s personal life. The people in govt are required to pay attention to public issues, but instead, they have gone silent over the demolition of houses of the poor.”
The convergence of these two stories—BLAs’ growing influence in the electoral process and the controversy surrounding Tejashwi’s absence—highlights both the dynamism and the deep-seated tensions in Bihar’s political theater. The SIR has transformed the BLA from a little-known functionary into a pivotal, if controversial, player in the revision of electoral rolls. At the same time, the personal and political choices of high-profile leaders like Tejashwi Yadav continue to draw both criticism and deflection, reflecting the broader contest for narrative control in Bihar’s public life.
As the state moves forward with the SIR and approaches future elections, the effectiveness, fairness, and transparency of these processes—and the individuals driving them—will remain under close watch, shaping not just Bihar’s politics but also the credibility of its democratic institutions.
