Flawed by design, exclusionary in impact

Why in the News

The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the rolls promises that no eligible elector is left out, yet it has struck 13.37 crore names off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories in three phases. The Supreme Court upheld it on 27 May and is now hearing petitions on West Bengal and Delhi, and pleas to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner.

What is the SIR, and what does the Commission’s own Manual require?

1. What it is: An SIR, which the Commission calls an exercise to “purify” the rolls, rebuilds the voters’ list house by house, like replacing a society’s membership register rather than adding names.
2. Manual standard: The Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023 calls an intensive revision a “de novo process” (from scratch) with enumerators visiting every house. Where citizenship is doubted, presence on the earlier roll has “probative value” (evidential weight), so whoever objects must prove it.
3. The takeaway: The dispute is not whether rolls can be cleaned but who must prove eligibility, the State or the voter.

What are the five flaws in the SIR’s design?

1. Inverted enumeration: Electors must trace themselves or a parent to a revision over two decades old, or produce documents, which resembles a citizenship test. Those not found were dropped, even if they had voted.
2. Re entry only through Form 6: Deleted voters must reapply on the form for new voters, so published figures cannot separate new from returning voters, blocking an audit.
3. Software flags: Software flagged “logical discrepancies” such as spelling differences or more than six voters linked to one ancestor. In West Bengal it flagged 60 lakh names.
4. Centralisation: Changes flow through the Electoral Roll Officers’ Network (ERONet) database, overriding Electoral Registration Officers, the statutory authorities on eligibility.
5. No baseline: The Census is delayed, so no firm population baseline exists. Eg. Tamil Nadu’s final roll is about 33 lakh short of its projected electorate.

How large is the exclusion, and who bears it?

1. Rising deletions: The deletion rate doubled as the SIR advanced, from 8.3% in Bihar to 17% in Phase 3.
2. Delhi: The draft roll is barely above the number who voted in the last Assembly election, and in 24 of 70 constituencies it is smaller than the votes cast.
3. Community skew: A SABAR Institute analysis of West Bengal found 65% of deletions for “logical discrepancies” were Muslims, against about 27% of the population.

Did the Supreme Court and the Commission test the SIR?

1. Special revision power: Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows a special revision “for any constituency or part of a constituency”. The Court allowed State wide use.
2. Test applied: The Court asked only whether the SIR was “manifestly excessive”, not whether a less harmful method could achieve the aim. It found disenfranchisement not “widespread or systemic” enough to intervene.
3. Precedent sidestepped: The Court bypassed its three judge ruling in Lal Babu Hussein (1995). That ruling presumes a name on the roll valid, removable only after notice and a hearing.
4. Dissent within: Two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026. They formed a majority but did not stop the decisions.

Challenges

1. Overstretched officers: Tight targets overburden Booth Level Officers, who make the house visits.
2. Verification subjectivity: Officers can mark voters “shifted” arbitrarily.
3. Fear of a citizenship test: Residents fear a “stealth” National Register of Citizens (NRC) and refuse to give documents.

Way Forward

1. Review and pause: The Court should revisit its judgment on review or before a Constitution Bench, and halt the SIR.
2. Audit and verification: Audit the finalised rolls before further deletions, and return enumeration to Booth Level Officers visiting homes.
3. Pre SIR rolls: States voting soon should use their earlier rolls, updated with fresh enrolments.

Conclusion

The Commission was built to widen the franchise, and roll cleaning narrows it when the burden of proof moves from the State to the voter. The pending hearings can set a removal standard that protects every eligible elector.

Key numbers

1. Deletions at draft stage: 65 lakh in Bihar, 6.57 crore in Phase 2 (12 States and Union Territories), 6.15 crore in Phase 3; about 6.2 crore net across Phases 1 and 2.
2. Delhi and gender: Draft roll 97.54 lakh against 94.95 lakh votes in February 2025, and deletion rate 32.8%; gender ratio of final rolls 892, from 907 in 2024.
3. West Bengal appeals: Tribunals restored electors in 93% of cases but disposed of 1.22 lakh of over 38 lakh appeals by early September.

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?”