There is a fundamental difference between correcting electoral rolls and reducing the number of voters. One strengthens democracy, while the other weakens it. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), now in its second phase across 12 states after Bihar, is intended to update and verify the voter list to ensure accuracy. The process has begun in nine states and three Union Territories, including Gujarat, where nearly 510 million voters—about 50 million in Gujarat—are being verified. The review compares the 2002–2004 rolls with the proposed 2025 rolls, marking only the ninth such nation-wide revision since Independence.
Articles 324 and 325 of the Constitution establish the Election Commission and guarantee non-discrimination in inclusion in electoral rolls. Under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, the Commission may order special revision of any constituency’s roll, but the existing roll remains valid until the revision is complete. According to the Election Commission, SIR aims to verify voter details and correct inaccuracies. Voters present in both the 2002 and 2025 rolls are being specially scrutinized to eliminate duplicate, false, or outdated entries. In principle, such a process should strengthen the integrity of elections. However, unlike earlier more community-based verification processes, the present exercise has triggered confusion, mistrust and political anxiety.
Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are visiting households with partially prefilled enumeration forms. These must be checked, signed and returned—either physically or online. BLOs will visit up to three times; if a voter is unavailable, neighbours may be asked to provide information, but the voter’s own signature is necessary. Unsigned or unreturned forms may lead to deletion of names. Over 50,000 BLOs in Gujarat alone are tasked with covering every household. Forms must be submitted by 4 December 2025, the draft roll will be published on 9 December and objections can be filed until 8 January 2026.
Initially, Aadhaar was excluded as proof, creating difficulties especially for the poor, for whom Aadhaar is often the only available ID. After court intervention, Aadhaar was accepted—though it proves identity, not citizenship. Confusion persists regarding which documents prove nationality and how many “foreign nationals” have been found, since that was cited as the justification for the revision. In November 2025, Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed Aadhaar as an identity document under Section 23(4) of the RPA, emphasising that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. Yet the requirement remains difficult for many rural, tribal, migrant and marginalised voters who lack documents like birth certificates or digital literacy.
During Bihar’s SIR exercise, around 6.866 million names—about 8.5%—were deleted, including deceased and migrated persons and 366,000 declared “ineligible” due to lack of citizenship documents. Maharashtra added 1.47 million names but removed 409,000—without political objections. But opposition fears intensify in states headed for elections in 2026, such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and Puducherry, where even a few thousand deletions can alter results. Reports suggest names have been removed without due notice, despite Rule 20 of the 1960 Registration Rules requiring written communication and a hearing. Cases of living voters being marked dead or “moved away” have surfaced. Migrants and the poor suffer most, and verification sometimes happens only at desks rather than door-to-door, undermining safeguards.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission on petitions filed by political parties and civil groups challenging the nationwide SIR. It has stayed proceedings in all High Courts and is hearing the matter within the ADR vs. ECI case. Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that SIR cannot demand citizenship proof from all voters and should focus on targeted review, whereas the Commission contends BLOs only collect forms and decisions are made by Electoral Registration Officers. The Court is examining whether SIR complies with the Constitution, RPA and citizenship law. No final decision has yet been reached.
The broader fear is that such massive and rapid revisions, undertaken just before major state elections, might undermine rather than strengthen democratic participation—especially when millions struggle for basic needs such as education, healthcare, housing, electricity, water, roads and jobs. In a context where elections are dominated by slogans, freebies and polarization rather than service-based accountability, any perception of voter suppression deepens distrust. Instead of large-scale purging of rolls, governments must ensure stable livelihoods that reduce migration and support vulnerable communities with real social and economic justice. Budgets running into lakhs of crores should reflect responsibility rather than political theatre. Hate and discrimination must give way to unity for real development.
Elections should be a covenant of dignity and service, not transactional exchanges of promises. The Election Commission and governing authorities must step away from a role resembling arbiters of power and stand firmly as guardians of constitutional values. Citizens expect impartiality, transparency and fairness.
SIR, as mandated by Article 324 and Section 21 of the RPA 1950, is intended to be a large-scale verification exercise when routine annual revision is insufficient. But its credibility will depend not on stated purpose but on process—fair notice, due hearing, clarity about acceptable documents, safeguards for the poor and complete transparency.
The soul of democracy lies not merely in the right to vote, but in the assurance that every eligible citizen will not be silently erased. The promise that no one will be arbitrarily excluded is the promise that keeps democracy alive.
---
*Human rights activist based in Gujarat
Comments