Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS2-08.Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.

  • Dozen Bengal Tribunal judges flag their EC portal: ‘Can’t serve notices, hold hearings or restore deleted voters’

    Why in the News

    The appeal route the Supreme Court built for 27 lakh voters deleted in West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) promises a hearing, but its tribunals cannot serve notices, hold hearings or restore voters on their portal. Judges of more than a dozen of the 19 tribunals recorded these gaps in August, in minutes sent to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Calcutta High Court’s Chief Justice.

    How did the appeal tribunals come about?

    1. What they are: Single-member bodies of retired High Court judges that hear a deleted voter’s appeal against removal from the roll, like an appeals court for the voter list.
    2. Court takes over: Invoking Article 142 (its power to pass any order needed for “complete justice”), the Court on February 20 ordered judicial officers to decide electors’ eligibility.
    3. Flagged by software: The ECI’s centralised software listed 60.06 lakh electors for “logical discrepancies” (mismatches its algorithm found in their records) or as “unmapped”.
    4. Deleted before polls: Judicial officers deleted 27.16 lakh of them weeks before the April polls. The Court then ordered the tribunals on March 10.
    5. The takeaway: The tribunals are the only check on deletions made in haste before an election, so their tools decide whether that check works.

    What did the judges say the portal cannot do?

    1. Serving notices: The portal, built by the ECI’s IT division, cannot serve notice, even after repeated requests. A notice format the judges approved in May was never used.
    2. Securing documents: Tribunals cannot obtain additional documents through it, so they email district officials, who respond poorly.
    3. Hearings and restoration: There is no facility for virtual hearings. A voter cannot be restored on the portal once an appeal is disposed of, even on a judicial direction.
    4. Order copies: Appellants cannot get a certified or downloadable copy of the order, so they cannot learn why they were deleted or included.
    5. Physical appeals: Appeals filed on paper with district officers are not digitised or properly recorded, which the judges warned would mean “injustice”.

    Why do the portal gaps undermine the appeal process?

    1. Court’s conditions unmet: The Court’s April 1 order told tribunals to give reasons and revisit records. The judges said that without these tools voters lose due process, a fair hearing.
    2. Ignored warning: On May 22, a tribunal judge told the Chief Justice that missing notices were slowing appeal decisions and wrong disposal figures were reaching the press.
    3. Slow disposal: Only 1.26 lakh of 38.31 lakh appeals had been decided by early September, the ECI told the Supreme Court.
    4. Repeat failure: Before the polls, the Court recorded an “urgent concern” over an ECI mistake in the judicial officers’ portal.
    5. Central control of software: Two Election Commissioners had objected that ECINET, the ECI’s main digital system, restricted field officers’ access.

    Did the deletions decide the election?

    1. Result and claim: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the April polls by a landslide, and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) blamed deletions for its defeat.
    2. Seats in question: Deletions exceeded the victory margin in 49 of 293 seats.
    3. Even split: The BJP won 26 of those seats and the TMC 21, so the claim is more political than empirical.

    Challenges

    1. Software over court orders: A portal’s design, not the Court’s order, now sets what a judicial body can do.
    2. No deadline for appeals: Rolls freeze when nominations close, so an appeal won later cannot restore a vote for that election.
    3. Opaque flagging: “Logical discrepancies” have no published definition, so a voter cannot know what to rebut.

    Way Forward

    1. Portal fix under supervision: The ECI should add notice, document, hearing, restoration and order-download functions by a deadline the Calcutta High Court sets.
    2. Digitise paper appeals: District officers should upload every physical appeal, as the ECI’s own notification requires.
    3. Public disposal data: The ECI should publish tribunal-wise disposal figures every week.

    Conclusion

    The Court built an appeal route for deleted voters, but whether it works depends on a portal the ECI controls and has not fixed. Whether either court orders those functions added will decide if the remaining appeals are heard before the rolls next decide an election.

    Key numbers

    1. Appeals by deleted voters: 22.21 lakh, ECI submission to the Supreme Court, September 2026.
    2. Appeals against inclusions: 16.10 lakh, seeking deletion of listed voters, same submission.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • ECI must not force voters to lie. Solution may lie in a Form 6X

    Why in the News

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) has moved from deleting names in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to re-enrolling the eligible voters it removed, but through Form 6, a form meant only for first-time voters. Its new instructions order a special enrolment drive in 20 States and Union Territories after about 13 crore names left the draft rolls.

    What is the ECI’s corrective drive?

    1. What it is: A drive restoring eligible voters that the SIR, a door-to-door re-check of voters, wrongly removed. It is like fixing a register that dropped real members.
    2. How it works: Officials compare pre-SIR and post-SIR rolls, visit missing voters at home and help them enrol. Political parties may assist.
    3. When ordered: Instructions issued on September 29 were reinforced at an October 1 meeting with Chief Electoral Officers, the ECI’s top officer in each State.
    4. Two target groups: The drive targets young voters left unenrolled and long-registered voters deleted from the rolls.
    5. The takeaway: The ECI has in effect admitted wrongful deletions, so the legal route back now matters.

    Why must the ECI account for young voters?

    1. Long-standing commitment: The ECI long urged every new adult to register at once. The Union Cabinet’s 2011 decision to mark 25 January as National Voters’ Day reflected this.
    2. Four qualifying dates: A 2022 reform allowed enrolment on four qualifying dates a year, one per quarter, each a date on which eligibility is counted. Seventeen-year-olds could apply in advance.
    3. The 2024 lapse: The ECI must explain how many young people eligible from 2024 stayed unenrolled, and why. A corrective drive is no substitute for that explanation.

    Why is Form 6 the wrong route for deleted voters?

    1. A form for new voters: Form 6 is the “Application Form for New Voters”. Its declaration reads, “I am applying for inclusion in Electoral Roll for the first time.”
    2. A false statement: Someone who has voted for 20 or 30 years cannot sign this honestly, yet a first-time applicants’ form is being used to restore them.
    3. Penalty for voters: Under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, a false declaration is punishable with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.
    4. Risk for officials: Under Sections 45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), knowingly prompting or helping an offence is abetment, punishable like the offence itself.
    5. Voters who objected: Some registered voters reportedly protested but were made to file Form 6 anyway.

    How would a restoration form work?

    1. Restoration, not registration: First-time voters would register through Form 6. Wrongly deleted voters would be restored through a new Form 6X.
    2. What it would ask: The voter gives the old Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number, the voter ID, and earlier roll details.
    3. Checks before restoring: Officials verify whether the person is still eligible, has shifted, is registered elsewhere or has become disqualified.
    4. No litigation needed: The electoral machinery already holds these records, so voters should not have to go to court to recover their vote.

    Challenges

    1. Weak legal footing: An entry restored on a false declaration is open to later challenge.
    2. Burden on the wronged: The ECI deleted the names, yet each deleted voter must apply again.
    3. Field capacity: Home visits depend on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) already stretched by the SIR.

    Way Forward

    1. Notify Form 6X: The Law Ministry should amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, a change the author says takes a few hours.
    2. Quarterly enrolment data: The ECI should publish applications, enrolments, rejections and pendency each quarter, and account for young citizens who missed elections.
    3. Accountability: The ECI should publish the drive’s results, explain the failures behind it, and hold obstructing officials to account.

    Conclusion

    The ECI has conceded wrongful deletions but routes the remedy through a declaration that is untrue for every voter it serves. Whether a separate restoration route is created before the drive closes will decide if restored voters carry legal risk.

    Electoral roll revision in India

    1. Special Intensive Revision: A time-bound, door-to-door enumeration in which BLOs physically verify every entry, unlike the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Purpose: It removes deceased, duplicate or shifted entries and adds newly eligible citizens.
    3. Constitutional basis: Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control over preparing electoral rolls.
    4. History: The first intensive revisions ran from 1952 to 1956, and about 14 have been held in all.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • [5th October 2026] The Hindu OpED: The ECI’s constitutional mandate is under strain

    [5th October 2026] The Hindu OpED: The ECI’s constitutional mandate is under strain

    Question (2018, GS2 – 10 Marks): In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?
    Linkage: Addresses the primary constitutional burden placed on the ECI—ensuring public confidence, administrative neutrality, and procedural integrity in conducting free and fair elections amidst institutional controversies.
    [2017] Consider the following statements:
    1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
    2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
    3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
    (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 3 only

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Constituent Assembly made the Election Commission independent so that it could protect voters from the executive. The Special Intensive Revision shows the reverse: independence without accountability allows the Commission itself to exclude voters. The reform question is not the Commission’s autonomy but the checks on the person who exercises it, in removal, appointment and immunity.

    Why in the News

    The Constitution placed the Election Commission of India (ECI) beyond executive control to stop partisan deletion of voters, yet the ECI now faces charges of mass deletion through a revision the law does not name. A former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha argues the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) lacks a legal basis and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)‘s unilateral decisions have created a constitutional crisis.

    Why did the Constitution-makers centralise and insulate the ECI?

    1. Original proposal: Draft Article 289 proposed decentralised machinery: a chief election commissioner in each province for State rolls and elections, and one at the Centre for national polls.
    2. Why it was rejected: Provincial commissioners, mostly Chief Ministers’ nominees, had deleted voters seen as opponents. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved a new Article centralising the machinery “outside the control of the executive government”.
    3. Loyalist fear: Shibban Lal Saxena feared a loyalist CEC and proposed appointment by a two-thirds parliamentary vote, like United States Senate confirmation.
    4. The takeaway: The mass deletion of voters that drove centralisation is now alleged against the central body itself.

    Does the law provide for a special intensive revision?

    1. Ordinary revision: Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 provides for revision before each general election or by-election, or in any year the ECI directs.
    2. Method: Under Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, that revision may be intensive (roll prepared afresh), summary (existing roll updated), or partly both.
    3. Special revision: Section 21(3) allows a special revision for reasons recorded, but only for “any constituency or part of a constituency” where special circumstances exist.
    4. Limits of Article 324: Article 324 lets the ECI act where statute is silent, never against the law. Eg. Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) recognised this gap-filling power.

    Why do the deletions and the decision process raise constitutional questions?

    1. Scale of removal: About 13 crore voters have reportedly been removed nationwide, possibly the largest disenfranchisement exercise in any democracy.
    2. Article 326 conflict: Article 326 provides for universal adult suffrage, so its scheme is to include eligible voters. The SIR has instead worked to exclude them.
    3. Unilateral CEC: The two Election Commissioners (ECs) say they were excluded from crucial decisions. The author argues a decision the CEC takes alone is invalid, as is every action that follows.

    Can the CEC be held to account?

    1. Impeachment route: Opposition parties plan an impeachment motion. The CEC is removed like a Supreme Court judge, only on proved misbehaviour.
    2. Threshold barrier: The presiding officers of both Houses can disallow such a motion at the threshold.
    3. Lifelong immunity: Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 shields the CEC and ECs from civil and criminal liability for life, which even the President lacks.

    Challenges

    1. Ambiguous statute: Section 21(3) does not define a special revision’s scale, so a State-wide exercise is contestable.
    2. Burden on electors: Deleted electors must prove eligibility to return. Eg. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) on this burden.
    3. No internal check: Decisions without the full Commission leave no record of dissent.
    4. Accountability gap: Threshold rejection of motions and lifelong immunity together leave little route to examine a CEC’s conduct.

    Way Forward

    1. Amend Section 21: Parliament should define State-wide revision, its procedure and safeguards in the RP Act.
    2. Recorded collective decisions: The ECI should take every SIR decision by a recorded vote of all three members.
    3. Narrow immunity: Parliament should limit Section 16 to acts done in good faith during the term.
    4. Notice before deletion: No name should leave the roll without individual notice and a hearing.

    Conclusion

    The ECI is now accused of the very exclusion it was built to prevent. Whether the Supreme Court tests the SIR’s legal basis before the remaining final rolls are published is what to watch.

    Independence of the Election Commission of India

    1. Appointment: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) placed the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel until Parliament legislated. The 2023 Act replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister.
    2. Unequal removal protection: An EC, unlike the CEC, can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation, so ECs lack the CEC’s security of tenure.
    3. Financial dependence: The ECI’s expenses are not charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, so they need Parliament’s vote. The Law Commission’s 255th Report recommended charging them.
    4. Post-retirement posts: No constitutional bar stops a CEC or EC taking a later government post.

  • EC releases video for EROs on SIR notice disposal; no written instructions so far

    Why in the News

    Notice cases in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which earlier needed documents or a hearing order to settle, can now be cleared by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) without a hearing or documents. The Election Commission (EC) has added these options to its ERONET portal but is explaining them only through a demonstration video, with no written instructions.

    What has changed in disposing of SIR notices?

    1. What a notice case is: Electors flagged for “no mapping” or “logical discrepancies” (doubtful entries) in the draft roll are served notices. They must produce one of 12 documents prescribed by the EC.
    2. Who decides: The ERO has final authority over a constituency’s electoral roll. ERONET is the portal through which EROs record each decision.
    3. Three new options:
      • where the Booth Level Officer (BLO) has uploaded documents, the ERO can mark an elector “found OK” without a hearing order;
      • where no documents were collected, the ERO can mark the elector eligible after uploading a hearing order;
      • where notices are yet to be generated, the ERO can choose “without hearing” or “with hearing”.
    4. Earlier rule: A hearing order was needed only to mark an elector “found not eligible”, with the reason recorded.
    5. The takeaway: EROs can now clear cases faster, but the legal basis rests on a video rather than a written order.

    Why does the absence of written instructions matter?

    1. Video only: The EC’s Information Technology Department made an eight-minute video, recorded on October 1, and showed it to Delhi EROs at a meeting.
    2. Shifting instructions: One ERO said instructions had come “some written and some oral”, and many were withdrawn. Eg. Delhi EROs were told to identify “suspected foreigners”, then told not to.
    3. Statutory authority: The same ERO said he will wait for written orders, because the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 vests decisions in him.
    4. Centralisation charge: Critics allege bringing ERONET under ECINET, the EC’s integrated digital platform, curtailed field officers’ powers. EROs had sought these options since the notice phase began.

    Where do the options apply, and how much can they change?

    1. Coverage: The options apply in the 10 States and Union Territories (UTs) where the third phase of the SIR is still under way.
    2. Too late for some: Final rolls were already published elsewhere. In West Bengal, 27 lakh of the 60 lakh electors served notices were left out of the final roll.
    3. Scale: Over nine crore notices have been served in the second and third phases.
    4. Limited use where hearings are fixed: The options matter little where every notice already carries a hearing venue and time. Eg. All of Delhi’s notices do.
    5. No reversal: EROs cannot reverse a case once an elector is marked ineligible. Over 350 Delhi electors were marked so, and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer cautioned EROs against unverified use of the options.

    Challenges

    1. Natural justice: An ineligible marking cannot be reversed, so marking without a fresh hearing can wrongly exclude voters.
    2. Unequal treatment: Electors in States already finalised never got the faster route.
    3. Legal uncertainty: Decisions made on a video, not a written order, are open to later legal challenge.
    4. Field capacity: BLOs collecting documents door to door face heavy workloads.

    Way Forward

    1. Written order: The EC should issue a written order stating when each option may be used.
    2. Review window: Allow an ERO to review an ineligible marking on fresh documents.
    3. Finalised States: Let excluded electors apply afresh through a simple inclusion form.
    4. Public data: Publish constituency-wise counts of cases cleared under each option.

    Conclusion

    The new options speed up disposal of notices but leave EROs exercising statutory powers on unwritten guidance. Whether the EC issues a written order before the remaining final rolls are published, starting this month, will decide if these decisions hold.

    Key numbers

    1. Delhi notices: 33.1 lakh, all with hearing venue and time; notice phase runs till 30 November.
    2. Final roll dates: Delhi on 4 December; Haryana, Maharashtra and Telangana in November; Tripura in February 2027.

    Back2Basics: Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)

    1. Legal basis: Section 13B of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provides an ERO for every Assembly constituency.
    2. Appointment: The EC designates an officer of the government or a local authority, in consultation with the State government.
    3. Role: The ERO prepares and revises the constituency’s electoral roll and decides claims and objections.
    4. Hierarchy: EROs work under the District Election Officer and the State’s Chief Electoral Officer.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Obstacle race

    Why in the News

    Opposition parties, student groups and citizens protested in Delhi, Mumbai and elsewhere on Gandhi Jayanti, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. They charge that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), meant to “clean” electoral rolls, has become a serial disenfranchisement of lakhs of citizens.

    What is the SIR, and how does it shift the burden onto voters?

    1. What it is: The SIR is the Election Commission of India (ECI)‘s fresh, door-to-door re-verification of every elector. It is like making every member of a club re-apply for membership.
    2. Nationwide expansion: After a Supreme Court verdict upheld the SIR, the ECI extended the Bihar method to every State and Union Territory (UT). It added an undefined “logical discrepancies” exclusion ground, first used in West Bengal.
    3. Burden reversed: Electors must prove their eligibility, so many are deleted first and verified later. Deleted voters return only as fresh applicants in the claims phase, and only if they notice the deletion.
    4. Easy deletion: Mass deletion requests are easy to file and quick to process. Getting back on the roll is onerous.
    5. The takeaway: A process meant to purify the rolls now removes eligible voters first and leaves them to fight their way back.

    How large have the deletions become?

    1. Scale of removal: Nearly 13.4 crore electors have been removed from draft rolls, about 14% of the electorate before revision.
    2. Rising each phase: Each phase has deleted more than the last, from 8.3% in Bihar to 17% in the third phase.

    Which procedural changes are contested?

    1. Dissent inside the ECI: Members of the Commission itself objected to procedural changes that are plainly illegal.
    2. Form 6 altered: Form 6, the voter enrolment form, now asks whether the applicant, parents or grandparents were on the last SIR roll. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 were never amended.
    3. West Bengal requests: 16.1 lakh requests were filed to delete electors whom judicial officers had already cleared.
    4. Central database: A centralised roll database in New Delhi made such bulk requests possible.

    How were the protests handled?

    1. Delhi clampdown: The government refused permission, imposed prohibitory orders banning gatherings, shut the Internet near Jantar Mantar, closed 11 Metro stations and detained over 700 protesters.
    2. Mumbai defiance: Police denied permission for a gathering at Shivaji Park, but protesters assembled anyway.

    Is restoration enough, and who is accountable?

    1. Implicit admission: The ECI has asked Booth Level Officers (BLOs), the field staff who verify electors, to restore deleted voters. This concedes that the process disenfranchised many.
    2. Majority could act: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi form the ECI’s majority and could have overruled the CEC.
    3. Stake for democracy: As carried out, the SIR obstructs universal adult franchise, every adult citizen’s right to vote, and electoral democracy itself.

    Challenges

    1. Hearing before deletion: Deleting first denies due process. Eg. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) barred removal without notice and hearing.
    2. Paperless electors: Migrants, the poor and women who moved after marriage struggle to produce documents tracing parents on old rolls.
    3. Opaque criteria: “Logical discrepancies” has no published definition, so electors cannot know why they were struck off.
    4. Weak collective check: A three-member Commission whose majority stays silent offers no internal correction.

    Way Forward

    1. Notice first: The ECI should issue individual notice and hold a hearing before any name leaves the roll.
    2. Rules before forms: The Union Law Ministry should amend the 1960 Rules before any form changes.
    3. Constituency data: Publish deletions by constituency and ground, so anomalies surface early.
    4. Recorded decisions: The Commission should take SIR decisions by recorded vote of all three members.

    Conclusion

    A clean roll and an inclusive roll remain at odds, and the SIR has resolved that tension against the voter. How many deleted electors the BLO restoration drive actually returns before the final rolls will show whether the correction is real.

    Key numbers

    1. Second phase deletions: 12.9% of electors across 12 States and UTs.
    2. SIR coverage so far: 30 States and UTs.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Should the EC take action against those filing forms for mass deletions?

    Why in the News

    Form 7, meant for an elector to object to a voter’s entry and seek its deletion, is being filed in bulk, with more than 4,000 in Karnataka. The surge has come in Phase 3 of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Similar cases in Rajasthan and Gujarat raise whether the Election Commission (EC) should act against the filers.

    What is Form 7, and what safeguards do the Rules provide?

    1. What it is: Form 7 lets an elector object to another person’s name on the roll. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set out the steps for registration, deletion and amendment.
    2. Public notice: The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) must display each objection on a notice board, then serve a specific notice on the person objected to.
    3. Formal inquiry: If an inquiry is demanded, the ERO must hold one before deciding, and may summon both sides and make the objector testify under oath.
    4. Penalty for false claims: Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 punishes false declarations with imprisonment, and objectors are warned of it.
    5. The takeaway: The Rules intend that no name is deleted without the voter getting a fair chance to respond.

    How are bulk Form 7 filings being misused?

    1. Few filers, many objections: In Karnataka’s Babaleshwar, 1,363 objections came from just 10 electors, many reportedly targeting Muslim names.
    2. Filings in an official’s name: About 3,500 objections in one Uttarakhand constituency were filed in the ERO’s name near the deadline; the Haridwar Rural ERO says he filed none.
    3. Automated appeals: An Election Commissioner flagged that an automated method produced appeals for exclusion before West Bengal’s appellate tribunals.
    4. Earlier precedent: In Karnataka last year, the EC found only about 28 of some 2,000 objections correct.

    What does the West Bengal data show?

    1. Disclosure lapse: Totals for Form 6 (inclusion), Form 7 (deletion) and Form 8 (correction) must be published after each revision. Most States, especially West Bengal, have not.
    2. Inclusion claims: Of 34 lakh claims to add names, 7,26,000 were rejected, about one in five.
    3. Deletion objections: Of 6,39,000 deletion objections, high for the State’s size, 5,72,000 were accepted.
    4. Skewed acceptance: Accepting almost 90% of deletion objections is a glaring anomaly, argues the West Bengal petitioner before the Supreme Court.

    Why have existing safeguards failed to deter misuse?

    1. Narrow penalty: Section 31 punishes false information; it cannot be invoked merely for filing bulk forms.
    2. Penalty unused: The EC has no known prosecution for a false declaration, so the provision has lost its deterrent force.
    3. FIRs not pursued: The EC files First Information Reports (FIRs) but leaves follow-up to police, who treat such cases lightly.
    4. EC filing caps: EC instructions cap filings at five or six forms per person. Booths with over 2% additions or deletions get greater scrutiny.

    Is the system broken, or only poorly enforced?

    1. Misuse, not failure: A former Election Commissioner says an ERO cannot file objections, and calls central manipulation unproven. He wants the Chief Electoral Officer and the EC to investigate.
    2. Institutional breakdown: The West Bengal petitioner argues that when part of the institution meant to uphold the law violates it, the system breaks down.
    3. Outdated law: The RPA and its forms predate online submission, so the petitioner seeks legal reform and judicial intervention.

    Challenges

    1. Unverified online filing: Objections can be submitted online without proof that the named filer sent them.
    2. Opaque data: Without booth-level disclosure, parties and courts cannot detect targeted deletions in time.
    3. Burden on the voter: A migrant voter may miss a notice and, once deleted, must reapply.

    Way Forward

    1. Separate crime data: The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) should publish a separate dataset on election-related crimes.
    2. Digital-era rules: Parliament should amend the RPA and the Rules to authenticate online objections against the filer’s identity.
    3. Mandatory disclosure: The EC should publish booth-wise data on all three forms at the end of each revision.

    Conclusion

    Deletion safeguards exist on paper, but false objections go unpunished, so mass filings cost their authors nothing. Whether the Supreme Court orders full disclosure in the West Bengal case will show if deterrence returns.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision?

    1. About: SIR is a time-bound house-to-house check of every voter entry by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), unlike the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Legal basis: Article 324 gives the EC control of electoral rolls. Section 21 of the RPA allows a special revision for recorded reasons.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • BLOs shared details for ‘verification’; hundreds of voters in Odisha nearly struck out of rolls

    Why in the News

    Booth Level Officer (BLO) logins meant to certify voter checks were used, without the BLOs’ knowledge, to file bulk deletion applications against voters they had verified. In Odisha’s Dhamnagar Assembly seat, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has approved the suspension of the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) accused of misusing BLOs’ one-time passwords (OTPs) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

    How were BLO credentials turned against voters?

    1. What Form 7 is: Form 7 is the application to object to, or seek deletion of, a name on the roll. BLOs process it on an app under their own login, confirmed by an OTP.
    2. How the misuse worked: The AERO and his staff sought OTPs from BLOs on the pretext of verification. The OTPs were then used to process Form 7s removing genuine voters.
    3. Spread across BLOs: Several BLOs in the Dhamnagar Notified Area Council (an urban local body) found such uploads. One found at least 227 in her name, another 130.
    4. Pressure on BLOs: Their police complaint says the AERO pressed them through a supervisor and threatened a show-cause notice.
    5. The takeaway: A check built on each BLO’s login became a way to strike voters off without any BLO deciding it.

    Who was targeted, and why did it raise suspicion?

    1. One community: Over 90% of the applications concerned Muslim voters. Dhamnagar, in northeast Odisha, is among the State’s few seats with a sizeable Muslim population.
    2. Already verified voters: BLOs say almost all flagged voters had been cleared in the enumeration round and traced to the 2002 SIR roll.
    3. Outlier volume: Dhamnagar alone produced over 3,000 Form 7s, against a statewide average of 141 Form 7-based deletions per seat.
    4. Narrow political margins: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the seat twice by narrow margins over the Biju Janata Dal (BJD). The BJD now seeks a thorough probe.

    How did the election machinery respond?

    1. Complaint and memorandum: 10 BLOs filed a police complaint on 4 September and approached the Bhadrak District Collector. The BJD then petitioned the State Chief Electoral Officer (CEO).
    2. Preliminary inquiry: The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), Bhadrak’s Additional Sub-Collector, found prima facie, on a first look, that the forms were processed in an unauthorised manner.
    3. Suspension: On 21 September, the ECI approved, via the CEO, suspension and disciplinary proceedings against the AERO, also the council’s Executive Officer. Odisha’s Housing and Urban Development Department issued the order.
    4. Further action: The Collector must forward a full “draft charge” (the formal allegations), and a detailed inquiry has been ordered.
    5. Names restored: The applications were withdrawn, and most targeted voters appear in the final roll released the same day.

    Challenges

    1. Shared credentials: OTPs handed to superiors mean a login no longer proves who decided.
    2. Detection by chance: The misuse surfaced through a BLO checking her app, not a system alert.
    3. Religious targeting: Deletions aimed at one community strike at Article 325, which bars exclusion from the roll on grounds of religion.
    4. Cheap objections: Bulk Form 7s cost filers little, while flagged voters must prove eligibility again.

    Way Forward

    1. Bulk filing alerts: Flag logins processing Form 7s far above the seat average.
    2. Non-transferable login: BLO approvals should use biometric or device-bound authentication in place of shareable OTPs.
    3. Penal action: Prosecute guilty officials under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which punishes breach of official duty in roll work.
    4. Protected reporting: Shield BLOs who report misuse from threats by superiors.

    Conclusion

    The SIR’s safeguards hold only if officials cannot borrow the credentials of those below them. Whether the inquiry ends in formal charges against the suspended officer is the next marker.

    Key numbers

    1. Odisha’s Form 7 deletions: 20,707 names across 147 Assembly seats.
    2. Odisha’s electorate: 3.33 crore before the SIR, 3.16 crore in the final roll.
    3. Dhamnagar’s electorate: 2.49 lakh at the start of the SIR, 2.31 lakh in the final roll.
    4. Dhamnagar enumeration deletions: 17,956 voters; the seat had 20,000 Muslim voters at the start.
    5. BJP’s winning margins: over 4,000 (2019) and 8,000-plus (2024).

    Back2Basics: Electoral Registration Officer

    1. Statutory hierarchy: Sections 13A to 13CC of the 1950 Act set up the roll machinery: a CEO per State, District Election Officers and EROs.
    2. Role of the ERO: The ERO prepares and revises the electoral roll for an Assembly constituency.
    3. Role of the AERO: AEROs assist the ERO and may perform the ERO’s functions, subject to the ERO’s control.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Form 7 objections in Karnataka SIR mostly against Muslim voters

    Why in the News

    In Karnataka’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the objection process meant for checking individual entries has become a route to bulk deletions, largely against Muslim voters. The statutory Form 10 report shows Form 7 applications seeking more than 4,000 deletions, most filed by a handful of electors a day before the claims and objections deadline, raising fears of targeted disenfranchisement.

    What is a Form 7 objection, and what changed at the deadline?

    1. What it is: Form 7 lets an elector object to a name on the roll or seek its deletion. It works like a neighbourhood check on the voter list.
    2. Public record: Form 10 consolidates every Form 7 filed, so anyone can see who objected to whom.
    3. Normal pattern: Earlier in the revision, deletions sought on the ground of shifting ran at about two or three per polling station, mostly electors removing their own names.
    4. What changed: From 22 September, bulk filings appeared against other people’s names, all citing “Absent/Permanently Shifted”.
    5. The takeaway: A tool built for self-correction was used by a few individuals to challenge thousands of voters, largely from one community.

    How concentrated were the bulk filings?

    1. Babaleshwar: Just 10 people filed 1,363 of the Form 7s received there on a single day, largely against Muslim voters outside their own polling stations.
    2. Single-filer volumes: One Babaleshwar elector filed 493 applications across 30 polling stations, far beyond his own booth.
    3. Bhalki (Bidar district): At least 30 people sought to delete more than 1,700 names on the deadline day.
    4. Single-booth targeting: In Basavakalyan and Belthangady, single electors filed 32 and 21 objections, all against Muslim voters in one polling station each.
    5. Across party lines: Congress Ministers represent Babaleshwar and Bhalki, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) holds the other two seats.

    Why are the forms themselves under question?

    1. Pre-printed forms: In some Bhalki forms, the targeted voters’ details were already printed, with only the objector’s details handwritten.
    2. Disowned objector: Several forms named an elector at Booth 129 as objector. The person contacted gave a different name, yet the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) details on the forms matched that elector.
    3. Repeat pattern: Another objector’s forms, over 170 of them, showed the same pre-printed pattern.
    4. Data mismatch: The disowned objector is missing from the downloadable Form 10 data. Officials said many offline forms were still to be digitised.

    How are officials and parties responding?

    1. Scrutiny promised: Officials in Bidar and Vijayapura said objections would be scrutinised so that no eligible voter is deleted. Bulk filers were warned that groundless claims, if proved, could invite punishment.
    2. Congress demand: The Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee president asked the State Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) for “suo motu action” against “large-scale fraudulent” misuse of Form 7.
    3. Civil society demand: The SIR Virodhi Okkuta sought an inquiry and criminal cases over forms found fraudulent.

    Challenges

    1. Cheap to object: Filing a Form 7 costs the objector little, but defending a name costs the voter time and documents.
    2. Deadline-eve surges: Last-day bulk filings leave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) little time to verify each case.
    3. Community targeting: Objections aimed at one community strain Article 325, which bars exclusion from the roll on grounds of religion.

    Way Forward

    1. Mandatory field check: EROs should order a Booth Level Officer (BLO) visit for every “shifted” objection before issuing notice.
    2. Bulk flagging: The Election Commission of India (ECI) should auto-flag filers objecting beyond their own polling station.
    3. Action on false filers: The CEO should file complaints under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 where forms prove fraudulent.
    4. Real-time digitisation: Offline Form 7s should be uploaded within a day.

    Conclusion

    The SIR’s claims process can be turned against one community when filing is cheap and verification comes later. The test now is whether ERO scrutiny keeps every eligible voter on the final roll, and whether false filers face action.

    Key numbers

    1. Babaleshwar, one day: 1,373 Form 7s received.
    2. Second Babaleshwar filer: 413 applications across 33 polling stations in one day.
    3. Bhalki repeat filer: 54 applications on 22 September, 120 on 23 September.

    Back2Basics: Section 31, Representation of the People Act, 1950

    1. What it penalises: A written false statement or declaration, known or believed to be false, made in connection with preparing or revising an electoral roll.
    2. Punishment: Imprisonment up to one year, or a fine, or both.
    3. Link to Form 7: The claim and objection forms carry a declaration that a false statement is punishable under this Section.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • BLAs bypassed 10-form daily limit using EC portal, data show

    Why in the News

    The Election Commission of India (ECI)‘s daily cap on objections by booth-level agents (BLAs) exists only on paper, because its ECINET portal has no mechanism to enforce it. Data from Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls show BLAs filing more objections a day than the ECI allows, weakening the safeguard against bulk deletions.

    What is the 10-form cap, and how does the online route escape it?

    1. What a Form 7 does: Form 7 lets an elector object to a name on the roll or seek its deletion. It works like a complaint, checked before a name is struck off.
    2. Why the cap exists: BLAs, a recognised party’s booth agents, may file in bulk. After the draft roll (the provisional list open to objections) appears, a BLA “shall not submit more than” 10 forms a day.
    3. What went wrong: Online, a BLA logs in like any citizen through Aadhaar authentication. The portal has no field to declare BLA status, so the limit never applies.
    4. How it surfaced: Form 10 reports, a public list of objections, stay on ECINET for seven days and exposed the pattern.
    5. The takeaway: A limit written into guidelines but not into software lets a few people seek mass deletions unchecked.

    Who filed the objections, and on what grounds?

    1. Repeat filers: Several individuals breached the daily cap. Chitresh Chandoliya, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) BLA and a sitting MP’s son, filed 35 objections in two days.
    2. Mostly self-deletions: About four in five Form 7s filed in Delhi that week were electors removing their own names.
    3. One ground for all: Every Form 7 the BLA filed in Karol Bagh cited “absent/permanently shifted”. One voter he objected to still lives at his listed address.
    4. Shared house numbers: In Patel Nagar’s Part 38, a booth’s section of the roll, one objector challenged 13 names in a day. Houses share numbers, and two brothers marked as shifted still live there.
    5. Loose offline checks: An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), who maintains a constituency’s roll, said offline objectors can enter another person’s name as objector.

    Why do disposal and disclosure raise concerns?

    1. Deletions decided faster: In one week, EROs decided 519 objections but only 92 Form 6 claims to add names. Inclusion claims were more numerous, so the pace favoured deletions.
    2. Due process burden: Each objection needs a notice, a hearing and a speaking order (a written, reasoned decision), so fast disposal raises doubt that each step was followed.
    3. Missing disclosure: Guidelines require inclusion, objection and modification forms to be uploaded daily on the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)‘s website. Nearly a month in, they remain unpublished.
    4. Extended timeline: The claims and objections deadline moves to 30 October, and the final roll is due on 4 December.

    Challenges

    1. Software lags rules: ECINET authenticates citizens but cannot identify party agents, so guideline limits fail online.
    2. Unverified objectors: Offline forms let one person object in another’s name, weakening accountability for false objections.
    3. Burden on voters: Genuine electors must answer notices to keep their names, hurting migrant workers most.
    4. Rushed hearings: Rapid disposal risks deletions without a real hearing. Eg. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995).

    Way Forward

    1. Portal-level cap: The ECI should tag BLA logins on ECINET and block objections beyond the daily limit.
    2. Objector verification: EROs should match each objector’s voter ID before admitting a Form 7.
    3. Daily publication: The Delhi CEO should upload application data daily, as guidelines require.
    4. Field check first: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) should physically verify every “shifted” objection before the hearing.

    Conclusion

    A safeguard enforced only at the counter is bypassed online, turning objections into a tool for bulk deletions. Whether the ECI fixes its portal and publishes application data before the extended deadline will decide the final roll’s fairness.

    Key numbers

    1. Applications since the draft roll (Delhi): 1.54 lakh for inclusion, 3,435 for deletion.
    2. Form 7s filed in Delhi, week analysed: 1,095.
    3. Filers above the daily cap: four individuals.
    4. Other bulk filers: 12 objections in Delhi Cantonment and 15 in Tri Nagar, each in one day.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision

    1. What it is: A time-bound house-to-house enumeration in which BLOs verify every voter entry, unlike the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Legal basis: Article 324 gives the ECI control of electoral rolls. Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows a special revision for recorded reasons.
    3. Aim: Remove dead, duplicate and shifted voters, and enrol newly eligible citizens.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Maharashtra top poll officer wants ECINet discretion for local staff, a demand the two ECs had flagged

    Why in the News

    Decisions the law leaves to local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are now fixed centrally by ECINet, the Election Commission of India (ECI)‘s software, and Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has asked for that discretion back in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) notice phase. He sought four changes, a concern two Election Commissioners had already flagged, and the Commission has partly responded.

    Who controls the voters’ list, and how has ECINet changed that?

    1. What the law says: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 make one Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) per Assembly seat responsible for the roll.
    2. Why it is decentralised: The ERO, usually a sub-divisional magistrate, decides which names stay, so no single person controls the list. The ECI has long cited this against manipulation allegations.
    3. What went wrong: In practice an ERO can pick only options ECINet offers, set centrally by the Director General of Information Technology (DG(IT)). The officer holds the power, but Delhi controls its use.
    4. The takeaway: When software fixes an officer’s choices, legal responsibility and practical control come apart.

    What is a “logical discrepancy”, and why does it matter?

    1. Meaning: A “logical discrepancy” is a mismatch ECINet flags when linking an elector to a parent on the last SIR roll. It is not a finding that someone is not a voter.
    2. Triggers: A mismatched parent’s name, a parent and child age gap under 15 or over 50 years, or no document or only Aadhaar.
    3. Scale in Maharashtra: It is the largest State now in the SIR notice phase, when flagged electors get notices. Its 31 August draft roll left out 21.1 per cent of electors.

    What four changes did the Maharashtra CEO seek?

    1. Hearings: The rules let the ERO decide whether a hearing is needed, but ECINet’s “Take Action” menu cannot skip one. The CEO sought an “Exempted from Hearing” option for electors with valid documents.
    2. Documents: The 13 documents listed are “indicative and not exhaustive”. The CEO sought an “Other/Other Equivalent Document” option for tribal, homeless and sex-worker electors.
    3. Who decides: A Booth Level Officer (BLO) statement or panchnama (witnessed local record) settles only name mismatches. The CEO wants EROs to settle all cases this way, referring the rest to the District Election Officer.
    4. Mandatory upload: ECINet requires an “Extract of Last SIR” in every case. The CEO proposed it only where records differ from the elector’s claim.
    5. Written instructions: Calling oral instructions insufficient, the CEO also sought frequently asked questions (FAQs). Four of the five requests seek a button for a judgement the law already gives EROs.

    Why do the requests echo the two Election Commissioners, and how has the ECI responded?

    1. Commissioners on record: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded that the software curtailed EROs’ powers. Sandhu’s 14 August note blamed “centralised control of ERONet at DG(IT) level”.
    2. Timing: The CEO wrote on 24 September, a day after an investigation revealed these objections. The ECI’s first reply cited its platforms’ strict data security protocols.
    3. Partial concession: On 26 September the full Commission let EROs exempt logical discrepancy cases from hearings, promising more flexibility.
    4. Internal reforms: Among eight other decisions, agendas and minutes will be issued, and an ECINet review committee will include an independent Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) expert.
    5. Link to dissent: The decisions track concerns the two Commissioners filed over 10 months.

    Challenges

    1. Burden on the vulnerable: Rigid document lists and default hearings weigh most on elderly, disabled and undocumented electors.
    2. Opaque automated flags: Age-gap rules can flag genuine voters without a reviewable reason.
    3. Internal trust deficit: Months of recorded dissent signal weak collective functioning inside the ECI.

    Way Forward

    1. Configurable ERO options: ECINet should offer every choice the Registration of Electors Rules allow.
    2. Published audit: The review committee should audit the roll database and publish findings.
    3. Written procedures: The ECI should issue FAQs for every SIR stage.
    4. Transparent flags: Electors should be told which rule flagged them.

    Conclusion

    Statutory discretion means little when central software withholds the tools to use it. Whether EROs get real flexibility before the final roll on 16 November will decide how many excluded electors return.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision

    1. What it is: A time-bound, house-to-house re-verification of every roll entry by BLOs, unlike the routine summary revision.
    2. Legal basis: Section 21 of the 1950 Act lets the ECI order a special revision at any time, for recorded reasons.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”