Differences in 2002 and 2025 SIR revision procedures spark alarm in Gujarat

By A Representative 

Civil rights groups and electoral reform activists have raised serious concerns over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Gujarat and 11 other states, alleging that the newly enforced requirements could lead to large-scale deletion of legitimate voters, particularly those unable to furnish documentation linking them to the 2002 electoral list.

According to a press note issued jointly by PUCL Gujarat Secretary Mujaheed Nafis, electoral reforms activist Santoshsinh Rathod, and ADR State Coordinator Pankti Jog, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has directed that every voter must show proof of their presence — or the presence of their father, mother, or grandparents — in the 2002 SIR list. Failing to produce such proof may result in a notice from the Electoral Registration Officer and potential removal of names from the final rolls. 

The activists object that no such rule existed during the 2001–02 revision process. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act reveals that the 2002 revision did not require voters to provide any proof of their presence in earlier lists, including the 1995 SIR. 

“The 2002 SIR was based entirely on a house-to-house survey, and voters were not asked to fill any forms or submit documentation,” the release states. Enumerators physically verified residents, recorded corrections on-site, and made changes directly on a carbon-copy master list given to household heads. Names could only be deleted in cases of death or migration, and voters possessing EPIC cards could have omissions rectified without additional proofs. 

In contrast, the current SIR places the responsibility on citizens instead of enumerators and demands proof of existence in the 2002 list — despite no such documentation being required at that time. Activists argue that this change lacks justification and may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, migrants, tribal communities, and economically weaker families.

The press note highlights several key differences between the two processes, including:

- Absence of door-to-door verification in the present SIR.

- No mechanism to record migration in SIR forms, potentially resulting in wrongful deletion for people who recently changed residences.

- Lack of provision to group family members recorded on different pages of the roll, requiring multiple submissions through different Booth Level Officers.

- Missing framework to re-include voters holding valid EPIC cards whose names may have been removed in error.

The activists warn that without proper safeguards, improvements to the electoral rolls are impossible. “How an improvement of the electoral rolls will happen is a BIG question,” the statement concludes. 

The groups have urged the Election Commission to withdraw the proof-of-2002 requirement, restore the enumerator-led verification model, and ensure that no eligible voter is removed due to bureaucratic hurdles.

Nafis, Rathod, and Jog have called on the public to remain alert and verify their electoral status amid fears that the new system may lead to large-scale voter disenfranchisement shortly ahead of upcoming elections.