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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • MHA proposes new Chapter ‘K’ under Article 371 for Ladakh

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has proposed an elected body for the Union Territory of Ladakh through a new constitutional provision under Article 371, in a proposed Chapter K. The proposal answers a demand pressed since 2019, when Ladakh was made a Union Territory without a legislative assembly after the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status under Article 370. Civil society representatives who attended the meeting with Ministry officials said they were shown a presentation naming Chapter K but were given no detailed draft proposal. The tension is that the Centre has named a constitutional route. The bodies representing Ladakh continue to demand Statehood and Sixth Schedule status, which the proposed route does not deliver.

    What is Article 371?

    1. Where it sits: Article 371 falls under Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with temporary, transitional and special provisions.
    2. How it is structured: It currently carries chapters running from A to J, each inserted to give a named State a specific safeguard.
    3. Where it applies: It is currently applicable in 12 States, namely Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Sikkim and Karnataka.

    What has the Ministry of Home Affairs actually proposed?

    1. A directly elected body: The Ministry stated that the intended Union Territory level body would be elected by direct election.
    2. The subjects it would legislate on: The body would have legislative powers with respect to land, culture and language, forest, environment, natural resources, and any other subject matter reserved for the Union Territory under Article 240, which empowers the President to make regulations for certain Union Territories.
    3. The Centre’s characterisation of it: The Ladakh Chief Secretary, who attended the meeting, described the broad contours of a sui generis model of governance under Article 371 as having been discussed, with deepening democracy as the goal.

    Why are the Ladakh bodies dissatisfied?

    1. Nothing new was tabled: The Leh Apex Body (LAB) said the meeting was a reiteration of the earlier meeting held on 22 May.
    2. A presentation is not a text: The representatives were given a presentation mentioning Chapter K but were yet to receive a detailed draft proposal from the Ministry.
    3. The assurance sought was not given: A climate activist who was part of the delegation said the meeting was not a complete success, since no draft assuring protection under Article 371 was provided.

    What else did the two bodies ask for?

    1. A freeze on major administrative decisions: The LAB and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) asked that the Lieutenant-Governor of Ladakh take no major decisions on administration, bureaucracy or land until the proposed constitutional safeguards are in place.
    2. A legislative deadline: They pressed for the legislation to be passed in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament.
    3. Compensation for the dead: They sought compensation for the families of the victims of the violence that broke out in Leh city on 24 September 2025, where four people were killed in police firing.
    4. Withdrawal of cases against protesters: They sought the withdrawal of criminal cases against 80 people, on the lines of the protection given to participants in the “Gen Z protest” at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in July.

    How did Ladakh reach this point?

    1. The 2019 reorganisation: After Ladakh lost its special status under Article 370 as part of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was turned into a Union Territory without a legislative assembly in 2019.
    2. The standing demands: The LAB and the KDA have since demanded Statehood and tribal status for Ladakh, the latter sought through inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, which provides for autonomous district councils with powers over land, forests and customary law.
    3. The substantive grievance: Both bodies have sought a larger role for local residents in decisions relating to land and infrastructure projects.
    4. The violence followed the demand: The Leh protest at which four people were killed had been called to demand constitutional safeguards.

    Challenges to a Chapter K arrangement for Ladakh

    1. The route requires a constitutional amendment the executive cannot enact alone: Each existing chapter of Article 371 was inserted by Parliament through an amendment, so a proposal remains a proposal until a Bill is passed. Eg. Article 371G for Mizoram was inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-third Amendment) Act, 1986.
      The Fix: Circulate a draft Bill text to the representative bodies before introduction, so the safeguard is negotiated on words rather than on assurances.
    2. Legislative power without financial power leaves the body dependent: An elected body that legislates on land and environment but draws its budget from the Centre can be constrained through the purse rather than through law. Eg. The Union Territory of Puducherry has a legislative assembly and still depends on central transfers for most capital spending.
      The Fix: Attach a defined statutory transfer to the Union Territory body, so its listed subjects carry the money to administer them.
    3. The reserved subjects are exactly the contested ones: Land, forest and natural resources are the subjects on which large central projects in Ladakh turn, so the overlap with Union Territory administration is immediate. Eg. Large renewable energy projects planned in Ladakh require substantial allocations of pasture land.
      The Fix: Specify in the chapter itself which land transactions require the elected body’s concurrence, rather than leaving the boundary to executive practice.
    4. A Union Territory model does not carry Sixth Schedule protections: Autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule hold defined powers over customary law and land alienation that a Union Territory legislature does not automatically acquire. Eg. The Bodoland Territorial Council draws its authority from the Sixth Schedule rather than from a State legislature’s delegation.
      The Fix: State expressly whether the new chapter forecloses or preserves the Sixth Schedule claim, so the two demands are not treated as interchangeable.

    Conclusion

    The Centre has moved from resisting a constitutional route to naming one, and that is the substantive shift here. What the two sides are negotiating is no longer whether Ladakh gets an elected body, but how much of land, environment and resources that body actually controls. Those subjects are also where the Union Territory administration’s own powers sit, and the proposal has not yet said which prevails. The marker to watch is whether a draft text reaches the representative bodies before a Bill is introduced, since a presentation cannot be negotiated.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10.0 marks] Recent directives from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are perceived by the `Nagas’ as a threat to override the exceptional status enjoyed by the State. Discuss in light of Article 371A of the Indian Constitution.”

  • SIR violates promise made by Constituent Assembly

    Why in the News

    The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is being challenged as a constitutionally and legally flawed exercise that operates as an exclusion rather than a revision, on the ground that 13 crore citizens stand removed from the rolls. The argument rests on Article 326, on Article 14, and on the safeguards in Sections 16, 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which permit deletion only after inquiry and a hearing. The Supreme Court endorsed the exercise by its 27 May decision, and that endorsement is itself contested. The tension is between an electoral authority’s power to purify the roll and the citizen’s constitutional entitlement to remain on it until disqualified on a stated ground.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision?

    1. The exercise: SIR is a focused, time bound house to house enumeration in which Booth Level Officers physically visit households to verify every entry on the electoral roll.
    2. How it differs from the annual exercise: The routine summary revision updates the roll on the basis of claims received. SIR verifies each existing entry through door to door checking.
    3. What it is meant to remove: Its stated objectives are to confirm the residence of every registered voter, to remove deceased, duplicate and permanently shifted entries, and to register citizens who have newly turned 18.

    What is the constitutional entitlement the exercise is measured against?

    1. Adult suffrage is the constitutional foundation: Under Article 326, every person who is a citizen of India and not less than 21 years of age, now 18, is entitled to be registered as a voter.
    2. The grounds of exclusion are closed: Article 326 permits disqualification only on grounds of non residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or illegal practice, under the Constitution or a law made by the legislature.
    3. Voting is therefore not merely statutory: A right whose grounds of denial are fixed by the Constitution itself is not a right that an administrative process may extinguish.
    4. Equality applies to the process, not only the outcome: Equality guaranteed to “any person” under Article 14 makes an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise open to challenge, since those removed were electors already on the roll as per law.

    Which statutory safeguards are said to have been bypassed?

    1. The roll must be prepared under the Act: Part III of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs preparation of the electoral roll, and the Election Commission of India (ECI) must prepare it in accordance with that Act.
    2. Section 16 fixes the disqualifications: It bars registration where a person is not a citizen of India, is of unsound mind, or is disqualified for corrupt or other practices.
    3. Section 21 keys revision to the Census: Revision of rolls proceeds on the existing Census, the last available being that of 2011.
    4. Section 22 requires inquiry before deletion: The Electoral Registration Officer may correct an entry only if satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, and only on finding the entry erroneous or defective.
    5. A hearing precedes removal: Section 22 gives the person the right to be heard before deletion, and deletion is available where a person is dead or has ceased to be a resident of the constituency.

    What is the claimed scale of exclusion, and who carries its cost?

    1. The headline number: 13 crore citizens are stated to have been excluded from the rolls.
    2. Two States account for a large share: 48 lakh electors were removed in Delhi and 2 crore in Maharashtra.
    3. The burden has shifted to the citizen: Booth Level Officers deleted names and the ECI put up lists, leaving the excluded person to establish the claim rather than the authority to establish the ground.
    4. Citizenship is not a plausible explanation: The ECI cannot maintain that 13 crore people are foreigners when they were not identified as non citizens over more than a decade.
    5. Exclusion travels beyond the ballot: Loss of entitlements such as passports, ration cards, free rations and other benefits follows from the uncertainty over status.
    6. Two elections have already been held: Elections to the Bihar and West Bengal assemblies took place in the interim, and the effect of the exclusions on those outcomes can be ascertained only by experts.

    What did the Constituent Assembly settle about the franchise?

    1. The question was debated directly: The Constituent Assembly took up the integrity of elections on 15 and 16 June 1949.
    2. Fairness was treated as beyond argument: R K Sidhwa said he did not think there were two opinions that elections should be fair, pure, honest and impartial.
    3. Corruption was not assumed to be a candidate’s monopoly: K M Munshi said the sovereign people must be able to elect their representatives in a manner above suspicion, and that corrupt practices may be committed by the government.
    4. Exclusion by official discretion was ruled out: B R Ambedkar said franchise is a most fundamental thing in a democracy, and no person entitled to be brought onto the rolls should be excluded merely by the prejudice of a local government or the whim of an officer.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. Documentary proof falls hardest on those least likely to hold it: Requiring legacy documents or a birth certificate excludes citizens whose lives were never recorded in formal registers. Eg. Landless labourers and migrant workers frequently hold no document tying them to a single constituency.
      The Fix: Accept a wider range of residency proofs, including utility bills and community certificates, so absence of a specific document is not treated as absence of entitlement.
    2. Grievance redressal runs slower than the deletion it answers: Claims and objections are filed against a deadline the roll itself is racing, so an unresolved claim becomes a deletion by default. Eg. Only a fraction of about 60 lakh claims in West Bengal were resolved before the roll was frozen for polling.
      The Fix: Establish year round appellate tribunals for electoral rolls, so a claim is not extinguished by an election calendar.
    3. Field verification carries unreviewable discretion: A Booth Level Officer’s judgement that a household has shifted is recorded without a stated ground and is rarely revisited. Eg. Entries are marked “shifted” on a single visit at which no member of the household was present.
      The Fix: Require geo tagged verification with a recorded reason for each adverse marking, so an official decision is traceable to a place and a date.
    4. Fear of a citizenship test suppresses cooperation: Households that read the exercise as a screening of nationality withhold documents, which itself produces the deletion they feared. Eg. Residents in border districts have declined to submit papers on the view that the exercise is a stealth register of citizens.
      The Fix: State in the enumeration form itself that the exercise determines registration alone and creates no finding on citizenship.

    Conclusion

    The exercise and the Constitution are answering two different questions. The ECI is asking who can prove entitlement, and Article 326 asks who can be disqualified on a stated ground; those are not the same test. Until that is resolved, an administrative default operates as a disqualification the Constitution does not list. The marker to watch is whether the deletion process is required to record a ground and a hearing for each name, since that is where a revision separates from an exclusion.

    What is the current status of the right to vote in India?

    1. The age threshold: Universal adult suffrage applies at 18, lowered from 21 by the Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988.
    2. The right is exercised through registration: Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 conditions registration on being 18 or above and ordinarily resident in the constituency.
    3. Its legal character is settled: The right to vote is a constitutional and statutory right rather than a fundamental right, so it is enforced through the electoral law rather than under Article 32.
    4. Two categories sit outside the ordinary rule: Section 20A provides for overseas electors to be registered, and proxy voting is confined to classified service voters such as members of the armed and paramilitary forces.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Elections and Electoral Rolls

    1. Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, the State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the ECI.
    2. Article 325: Mandates one general electoral roll for every constituency, and bars exclusion on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
    3. Article 327: Empowers Parliament to make laws on all matters relating to elections, which is the source of the Representation of the People Acts.
    4. Article 328: Empowers a State legislature to make election laws where Parliament has not provided for the matter.
    5. Article 329: Bars courts from interfering in electoral matters such as delimitation, except through an election petition.

    Major debates surrounding electoral roll revision

    1. The character of the right: Whether the right to vote should be read as a facet of Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) rather than as a purely statutory entitlement remains contested in litigation.
    2. Whether the ECI may test citizenship: Article 324 confers plenary superintendence, and the question is whether that extends to determining nationality, which is otherwise decided under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and by tribunals.
    3. Where the burden of proof sits: One position treats an existing entry as presumptively valid until disproved, and the other treats every entry as unverified until re-established.
    4. The judicial review bar: Article 329(b) limits challenges once the election process has begun, which pushes disputes over the roll into the narrow window before notification.
    5. Timing relative to polls: An intensive revision immediately preceding an election compresses the claims and objections period, and whether such an exercise should be barred within a fixed period before polling is unsettled.

    Laws and Rules Governing Electoral Rolls

    1. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the actual conduct of elections, the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, corrupt practices and election petitions.
    2. Sections 80 and 81: An election may be questioned only by an election petition filed in the High Court within 45 days.
    3. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Lays down the procedural framework for house to house enumeration and verification, and is the subordinate legislation an intensive revision is conducted under.
    4. Section 31, Representation of the People Act, 1950: Penalises false declarations made in connection with electoral rolls.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017] Right to vote and to be elected in India is a (a) Fundamental Right (b) Natural Right (c) Constitutional Right (d) Legal Right ANSWER: (c)”

  • BJD stages protest over Mines and Minerals Amendment Act

    Why in the News

    The Biju Janata Dal has demanded constitutional intervention to reverse the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026, marching to the Lok Bhavan in Bhubaneswar and submitting a memorandum addressed to the President through the Governor. The demand answers the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024). That judgment recognised the power of State governments to impose taxes and levies on mines and mineral bearing lands. It also dealt with recovery of such dues for the period beginning 1 April 2005, which the party values at more than Rs 1 lakh crore in arrears for Odisha alone. The contest is between Parliament’s power to limit State taxation in the name of mineral development and a State’s claim on the revenue from minerals it owns.

    What has the party actually asked for?

    1. Reversal, not amendment: The memorandum seeks constitutional intervention for the reversal of the 2026 amendment rather than a modification of its terms.
    2. The route chosen: The petition was addressed to the President and routed through the Governor, placing the objection outside the legislative process the amendment has already cleared.
    3. The stated test: Any legislative measure that substantially curtails the rights and financial interests of a State in relation to mines and mineral bearing lands deserves careful constitutional and legal examination.

    What is at stake for Odisha’s revenue?

    1. The arrears claim: The State was estimated to become entitled to more than Rs 1 lakh crore towards arrears of mining related taxes and levies following the 2024 judgment.
    2. The recurring claim: A further approximately Rs 12,000 crore of additional annual revenue was estimated to follow from the recognised taxing power.
    3. Why the base is large: Odisha’s reserves of iron ore, coal, bauxite, chromite and other minerals have historically been a major source of revenue for the State government, so a change in the taxing head moves a large absolute sum.

    How does the amendment reverse the judgment’s effect?

    1. The provision used: A new Section 9D bars a State from imposing any tax, cess or other levy on mineral rights or mineral bearing lands, whether measured by quantity, value or royalty, except in accordance with conditions the Central Government prescribes.
    2. The constitutional hook: Entry 50 of the State List gives States the power to tax mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development, and this is the first exercise of that limitation.
    3. The stated justification: Some States had stacked around fourteen separate charges, with land taxes reaching 20 per cent, on the ground that blocks were being made commercially unviable.
    4. The disputed edge: The judgment recognised a separate State power to tax lands under Entry 49 of the State List, which Entry 50’s limitation clause does not reach, and that gap is what a challenge would target.

    Challenges to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026

    1. A statutory limit on a constitutional head: Curbing a State land tax through a central mining statute rather than a constitutional amendment leaves the reversal open to challenge on the ground that Parliament used a power it does not hold over Entry 49. Eg. Odisha and Jharkhand have both said they will test the amendment in the Supreme Court.
      The Fix: Settle the boundary between Entry 49 and Entry 50 by a reference under Article 143 before assessments under the new section are raised, rather than after a decade of recovery litigation.
    2. A recognised entitlement is extinguished after it accrued: The 2024 judgment allowed recovery from 1 April 2005, so States had already booked receivables that the amendment removes prospectively and retrospectively at once. Eg. Odisha’s estimated arrears rest entirely on that recovery window.
      The Fix: Protect dues that accrued before the amendment’s commencement by an express saving clause, so the limitation operates only on future levies.
    3. Mineral revenue is concentrated in a few States: A uniform national bar falls almost entirely on the small group of mineral bearing States, which cannot substitute the lost head from any other source. Eg. Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh carry the bulk of India’s iron ore, coal and bauxite output and therefore the bulk of the foregone levy.
      The Fix: Compensate the affected States from a share of central mining receipts for a fixed transition period, on the model used for the Goods and Services Tax transition.
    4. Input cost stability is bought with fiscal centralisation: Capping State levies stabilises costs for steel, aluminium, cement and power at the price of removing a State’s only mineral specific tax head. Eg. The uneven and rising input cost that followed the 2024 judgment is the stated reason for the amendment.
      The Fix: Prescribe a ceiling rate for State levies under Section 9D rather than a bar, so cost predictability is achieved without extinguishing the head.

    Conclusion

    The dispute has moved from the courtroom to the constitutional offices and is heading back to the courtroom. A State whose taxing power was recognised by a judgment has been overridden by an ordinary central statute, and the party in opposition in that State has taken the objection to the President rather than to Parliament, where the amendment has already passed. What to watch is whether the mineral bearing States file the challenge they have threatened, and whether it is framed on Entry 49 rather than Entry 50.

    Back2Basics: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

    1. Scope: It is the parent law for every mineral except petroleum and natural gas, and it sets who may explore, who may mine and what they pay.
    2. Ownership and leasing: The State government owns the mineral in its territory and signs every lease, even for a block the Centre has auctioned.
    3. Auction as the only route: The MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 made competitive auction the sole route to a mineral concession, replacing discretionary first come first served allocation.
    4. The 2023 shift: For 24 critical and strategic minerals the Centre took over the auction itself, moving the auctioning authority upward while leaving State ownership untouched.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements: I. India has joined the Minerals Security Partnership as a member. II. India is a resource-rich country in all the 30 critical minerals that it has identified. III. The Parliament in 2023 has amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowering the Central Government to exclusively auction mining lease and composite license for certain critical minerals. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III ANSWER: (c)”

  • Uttarakhand voter-deletion puzzle: Why 4 plains districts account for 85% of Form-7s

    Why in the News

    Four plains districts of Uttarakhand account for more than 85 per cent of the 1,30,382 Form 7 deletion applications filed during the claims and objections period of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Udham Singh Nagar filed 43,878, Haridwar 29,369, Dehradun 19,402 and Nainital 18,301, against 382 in Rudraprayag. The concentration is read two ways: the ruling party attributes it to migration and border movement, the Opposition to the minority and Scheduled Caste composition of those districts. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has meanwhile disposed of only a third of the applications and has pushed the claims and objections deadline back by nineteen days.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls?

    1. A rebuild rather than an update: The roll is drawn afresh instead of being amended, so an existing elector is placed on a draft roll and re-established on it before the final roll is notified.
    2. The claims and objections window: A fixed period after the draft roll opens the roll to applications for inclusion, correction and deletion, and is the only stage at which an entry can be contested.
    3. The deletion form: Form 7 is the application seeking removal of a name, filed either by the elector concerned or by any other elector objecting to that entry.

    Where is the deletion demand concentrated?

    1. The four plains districts: Udham Singh Nagar, Haridwar, Dehradun and Nainital together account for over 85 per cent of the 1,30,382 Form 7 applications filed in the State.
    2. The hill districts barely register: Pauri Garhwal recorded 5,424 applications, Pithoragarh 3,044, Almora 2,999, Uttarkashi 2,109, Champawat 1,723, Chamoli 1,702 and Tehri Garhwal 1,431.
    3. The floor of the distribution: Bagheshwar recorded 618 applications and Rudraprayag 382, against Udham Singh Nagar’s 43,878.

    Why do the two sides read the same numbers differently?

    1. The migration explanation: Uttarakhand’s Minister for Minority Affairs attributed the concentration to the four districts being the State’s largest and most mobile urban centres, where people move while retaining electoral records at their previous locations.
    2. The targeting allegation: The Congress said it does not oppose the revision itself but objects to the manner of deletion, alleging that the affected seats are those with larger Muslim, minority, poor, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe populations.
    3. The rejection of a communal reading: The State minister rejected the suggestion that any minority was being targeted, resting the pattern on cross border movement of people alone.
    4. The Commission declines to interpret: The ECI’s stated position is that the figures record only applications received, and that district totals can vary with how actively individuals examined the roll.

    Can the machinery dispose of what has been filed?

    1. The disposal shortfall: Of the 1,30,382 applications received between 14 July and 13 August, only 44,132 had been disposed of as of 7 September, leaving 86,250 under process.
    2. Pendency follows the same map: Udham Singh Nagar has 34,903 applications under process, Haridwar 17,554, Nainital 11,498 and Dehradun 11,262.
    3. The schedule has moved: The claims and objections deadline has been extended from 9 September to 28 September, with the final electoral roll now due on 3 October.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. Deletion volume outruns adjudication capacity: Each Form 7 requires an inquiry and a hearing before a name is struck, and a single electoral registration officer cannot run tens of thousands of them inside a notified window. Eg. Udham Singh Nagar carries 34,903 undisposed applications against a district electoral machinery sized for routine annual revision.
      The Fix: Publish a per district disposal rate through the window, so a shortfall is visible in time for the schedule to be corrected rather than after the final roll is notified.
    2. A rebuilt roll shifts the burden onto the elector: A revision that does not carry the previous roll forward requires every elector to act, which falls hardest on those least able to track a draft publication. Eg. Circular migrant workers absent from their registered address through the claims window have no practical way to contest a deletion entry.
      The Fix: Require a documented delivery of individual notice to the registered address before any deletion is confirmed, rather than treating draft roll publication as sufficient notice.
    3. Bulk objections are not distinguished from individual ones: The form makes no distinction between an elector correcting their own record and a third party objecting to another elector’s entry, so the two are counted and processed alike. Eg. The State’s own figures report only totals received, with no breakdown of who filed them.
      The Fix: Record and publish the filer category on every Form 7, so a concentration of third party objections is identifiable in the data itself.
    4. No published reason code for a deletion: A name removed as a duplicate, a name removed on death and a name removed as a non resident are all recorded as a deletion, so the roll’s shrinkage cannot be audited. Eg. The Uttarakhand figures allow no test of the migration explanation against the targeting allegation, which is why both survive the same dataset.
      The Fix: Attach a mandatory statutory reason code to every deletion order and publish the code wise totals alongside the final roll.

    Conclusion

    The Uttarakhand figures do not settle the dispute they have started. The same distribution supports a migration reading and a targeting reading, and the Commission has declined to choose between them because the data records applications rather than outcomes. The test now sits in the disposal record: 86,250 applications have to be decided before 28 September, and the final roll is due on 3 October.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10.0 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?”

  • How to appoint judges: A view from South Africa

    How to appoint judges: A view from South Africa

    Why in the News

    • The Supreme Court has held that confidentiality in judicial appointments is necessary to preserve the integrity of the appointment process.
    • The issue arose in Arvind Malhotra v. High Court of Himachal Pradesh, involving a judge who challenged the elevation of a junior judge to the Supreme Court.
    • The case brings into focus the debate between confidentiality and transparency in judicial appointments.

    Judicial Service Commission of South Africa

    • The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is a constitutional body involved in judicial appointments in South Africa.
    • It includes judges, lawyers, legal academics and political representatives.
    • Its proceedings are conducted publicly and broadcast.
    • Process involves:
      • Calling for nominations.
      • Preparing a shortlist.
      • Inviting public comments.
      • Conducting public interviews.
      • Voting where members disagree.
    • The identity of individual votes remains confidential.

    Judicial Accountability in South Africa

    • Judges do not enjoy special immunity from complaints regarding conduct.
    • The JSC can investigate allegations of improper conduct.
    • Serious cases can lead to a public enquiry and recommendations for impeachment.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 124: Appointment of Supreme Court judges.
    • Article 217: Appointment of High Court judges.
    • 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014: Provided for the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    • 2015: Supreme Court struck down the NJAC framework and restored the Collegium system.

    Major Concerns

    • Judges appointing judges: Concerns regarding limited external checks and accountability.
    • Transparency: Collegium resolutions are published, but detailed reasons for selection are generally not disclosed.
    • Representation: Concerns regarding social and regional diversity in higher judiciary.
    • Objective merit: Absence of a publicly stated and standardised evaluation framework.
    • Regional imbalance: Some High Courts remain unrepresented in the Supreme Court.

    Way Forward

    • Develop clear and publicly stated selection criteria.
    • Improve transparency while protecting legitimate confidentiality.
    • Consider regional and social representation alongside merit.
    • Strengthen mechanisms for addressing complaints against judicial officers.
    • Maintain the essential balance between judicial independence and public accountability.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Article 124 → Supreme Court judges.
    • Article 217 → High Court judges.
    • Collegium → Judicial appointments to higher judiciary.
    • NJAC → Created through 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014.
    • NJAC struck down → 2015.
    • South Africa JSC → Constitutional body involved in judicial appointments.
    • TRAI vs JSC: JSC is a constitutional judicial appointments body in South Africa, while India’s Collegium is a judge-led mechanism evolved through judicial decisions.

    [2012] What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the supreme court of India?
    1. While appointing the Supreme Court judges, the president of India has to consult the CJI.
    2. the SC judges can be removed by the CJI only
    3. the salaries of judges are charged on the consolidated fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
    4. All appointments of officers and staffs of the SC are made by the govt only after consulting the CJI
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 3 only

    [B] 3 and 4 only

    [C] 4 only

    [D] 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • PAC flags failure to transfer Rs 9,222 cr. in cess collections

    Why in the News

    The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has flagged the failure to transfer Rs 9,222 crore of cess and levy collections to their designated reserve funds. Members questioned the Union Finance Ministry’s explanation on the issue. The committee reiterated its earlier recommendation that such collections be used only for the purposes for which they were raised. It had made that recommendation once already, in its 69th report tabled in August 2023, and the stated position of the chairperson is that ignoring the directions of a parliamentary standing committee amounts to an insult to Parliament. The tension is that a cess is justified to the taxpayer by an earmarked purpose. Its proceeds can still remain unmoved and available for ordinary expenditure.

    What is the Public Accounts Committee?

    1. A parliamentary financial committee: The PAC examines the appropriation accounts and the finance accounts of the Union government, along with the audit reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
    2. Its composition: It has 22 members, 15 elected by the Lok Sabha and 7 by the Rajya Sabha, each serving a one-year term. Ministers cannot be members.
    3. Chaired from the Opposition: By convention followed since 1967, the chairperson is drawn from the Opposition benches.
    4. It works after the money is spent: The committee scrutinises expenditure already incurred, so its function is post-facto accountability rather than approval of spending.

    What did the audit find?

    1. Collections that never reached their funds: An audit examination for 2024-25 found that money collected through various cesses and levies was not transferred to four designated reserve funds during the year.
    2. Where the finding is recorded: The finding forms part of Paragraph 3.3.1 of the CAG’s Report No. 6 of 2026.
    3. The explanation was not accepted: Members of the committee questioned the Finance Ministry’s account of why the transfers did not happen.

    What had the committee already recommended?

    1. Assess the amount and the duration: The 69th report called for scientific assessments of how much a cess should raise and for how long it should run.
    2. Review whether the purpose was served: It called for periodic reviews to evaluate whether the objectives a cess was raised for had actually been achieved.
    3. Credit the proceeds regularly: It called for regular crediting of cess proceeds to the reserve funds created to hold them.

    Why does the non-transfer matter?

    1. Purpose is the entire justification: The committee’s position is that cess collections must go to the purposes for which they were raised, and not toward financing the government’s budgetary deficit.
    2. The burden falls on everyone: A cess is collected from the whole population, whether or not a person pays income tax, and reaches the middle class and the poor alike.
    3. An unfunded fund is a fund in name only: A reserve fund that exists on paper but is never credited cannot finance the programme it was created for, so the earmarking becomes a description rather than a constraint.

    Conclusion

    A cess earns its political acceptance from a named purpose, and that acceptance is spent at the moment of collection whether or not the money ever reaches the fund. The committee can record the lapse and can repeat itself, but it cannot compel a transfer, which is why the same paragraph returns to it audit cycle after audit cycle. The current status is a recommendation standing reiterated and unimplemented for a third year. The next test is whether the Finance Ministry files an action taken note committing to a crediting timetable, rather than one restating the accounting position that produced the audit finding.

    Back2Basics: Cess

    1. What it is: A cess is a tax imposed on top of an existing tax, levied for a specific stated purpose rather than for general revenue.
    2. It stays outside the divisible pool: Article 270 keeps cesses and surcharges out of the pool of central taxes shared with the States, so a State receives no share of the collections.
    3. How the earmarking is meant to work: Proceeds are credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and are then to be transferred to a designated reserve fund from which the stated purpose is financed.
    4. Examples in force: The Health and Education Cess, the Road and Infrastructure Cess and the Goods and Services Tax Compensation Cess.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013] Consider the following statements : The Parliamentary Committe on Public Accounts 1. Consists of not more than 25 members of the Lok Sabha 2. Scrutinizes appropriation and finance accounts of the Government 3. examines the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (b)”

  • Punjab stand on judge sets disturbing precedent

    Why in the News

    Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra has taken oath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with the front-row chair reserved for the Punjab Chief Minister left empty. A day earlier the State Cabinet had asked the Punjab Governor to hold off the oath-taking. Its stated ground was that the Centre notified the appointment without the State’s consent, in breach of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) that governs judicial appointments. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Mishra and three other judges as chief justices of four High Courts on 6 August, and the Centre notified the appointment on 5 September. The contest is between a State’s right to be consulted on a High Court appointment and a consultative process that fixes no deadline for the State to answer.

    What is the Memorandum of Procedure?

    1. The rulebook for judicial appointments: The MoP sets out the sequence by which judges of the higher judiciary are recommended, consulted upon and appointed.
    2. It requires the States to be consulted: Before a High Court appointment is notified, the Centre must consult the State concerned.
    3. It fixes no time limit on the State: The document sets no deadline for a State to send its response.
    4. It is an executive document, not a statute: The MoP is settled between the Centre and the judiciary, and a revised version sought after the National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down in 2015 remains unfinished.

    What is Punjab’s case?

    1. Consent was not obtained: The Cabinet’s position is that the Centre notified the appointment without the State’s concurrence, which it treats as a breach of the MoP.
    2. No deadline binds the State: Punjab is correct that the MoP prescribes no deadline for a State’s response, so a delayed reply violates nothing on the document’s own terms.
    3. The flexibility has a purpose: That absence of a deadline exists because judicial appointment is designed as a consultative process rather than a clearance queue.

    Why does the case not hold?

    1. Weeks were available and went unused: If the State government had reservations about Justice Mishra, it had weeks in which to put them on file, where they could have been examined on their merits.
    2. The silence blocked three other courts: The delay in Punjab’s response held up all four chief justice appointments recommended in the same Collegium resolution.
    3. The court had recently ruled against the State: As Acting Chief Justice, Justice Mishra’s bench pulled up Punjab in August for withholding dearness allowance dues and for finding ample money for advertising. His court also heard a Mohali case in which allegations were made against the Chief Minister’s wife, which the ruling party has described as politically motivated.

    Is this an isolated episode?

    1. The same move was attempted in Delhi: The Aam Aadmi Party earlier sought to have Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma taken off the appeal in the excise policy case in which its leaders are arraigned as accused.
    2. The precedent this sets: Treating an adverse order as a personal affront converts a judicial outcome into a ground for obstructing an appointment, which is a template no political party should be able to rely on.

    What reform does the episode point to?

    1. Defined timelines belong in the MoP: The episode makes the case for writing fixed response periods into a document that currently has none.
    2. A benchmark already exists on the other side: The Supreme Court has set the Centre a benchmark of three to four weeks for clearing names reiterated by the Collegium.
    3. Deemed consent closes the gap: A comparable window for State responses, after which consent is treated as given, would remove the ambiguity this episode exposed.

    Conclusion

    Disagreement between the Centre and a State over an appointment is ordinary constitutional business, and nothing about it is improper. Withholding a reply is not disagreement; it is the absence of one, and it quietly converts a consultative step into a veto that no rule ever granted. A written objection with reasons can be examined and answered; silence can only be waited out. What remains unresolved is whether the duty to consult carries a corresponding duty to respond, and the present arrangement supplies no answer either way.

    Back2Basics: The Collegium

    1. What it is: The Collegium is the body of senior judges that recommends appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. It finds no mention in the text of the Constitution.
    2. Its composition: For Supreme Court appointments it consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.
    3. Where it came from: It emerged from the Second Judges Case (1993), which read “consultation” in Articles 124 and 217 as concurrence, and was expanded by the Third Judges Case (1998).
    4. Its binding force: The government may return a recommendation once, but a name reiterated by the Collegium is binding on it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15.0 marks] Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system on appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.”

  • Day after Cabinet move, Mann skips Chief Justice’s oath event

    Why in the News

    Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra has taken oath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Punjab Cabinet had passed a resolution a day earlier demanding that the appointment and the administration of the oath be put on hold until the State’s views were obtained and duly considered. The Punjab Governor administered the oath at Chandigarh, and the Punjab Chief Minister did not attend. The Union Ministry of Law and Justice had already notified the appointment under Article 217(1) of the Constitution. The contest is over what a State’s views amount to in a High Court Chief Justice’s appointment, a consultative input the Centre may record and move past, or a consent it must first obtain.

    What is the Memorandum of Procedure?

    1. What it is: The Memorandum of Procedure is the written document setting out the steps for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
    2. Where it comes from: It was framed to give administrative effect to the collegium system established through the Second and Third Judges cases. It is neither a statute nor part of the Constitution.
    3. What it governs: It fixes who initiates a proposal, who is consulted, and the order in which the file moves between the collegium, the State and the Union government.

    How was this appointment processed?

    1. Collegium recommendation: The Supreme Court collegium recommended four High Court Chief Justices, including this one, on 6 August.
    2. Views sought from the States: On 12 August the Centre sought the views of the Chief Ministers and the Governors of the four States concerned.
    3. The notification: The Appointments Division of the Department of Justice notified the appointment on 5 September under Article 217(1), with effect from the date the appointee assumes charge.
    4. He was already discharging the office: The Centre had asked him on 1 June to perform the duties of Chief Justice, after the previous Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court.

    What does Punjab say was violated?

    1. The resolution: An emergency Cabinet meeting resolved that the appointment and the administration of the oath be held until Punjab’s views were obtained and duly considered.
    2. Consent, not consultation: The State’s stated position is that the appointment was made without obtaining the consent of the State government.
    3. A pattern claim: The resolution described the step as another instance of the Centre bypassing Punjab’s constitutional rights and established procedure.
    4. The ground stated publicly: The Chief Minister’s objection rested on the Memorandum of Procedure and on constitutional norms rather than on any statutory bar.

    Where does the process actually leave a State?

    1. Article 217(1) names its consultees: The President appoints a High Court judge after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State. A Chief Minister acts through the Governor and is not a separate consultee.
    2. No deadline binds a State’s reply: The Memorandum of Procedure stipulates no time period within which a State must respond to a request for its views.
    3. Chief Justice appointments move fastest: Consent for the appointment of a Chief Justice is dealt with immediately in practice, so a State that does not answer quickly is overtaken by the file.
    4. Consultation is not concurrence: A collegium recommendation reiterated after reference back binds the executive. A State’s view is an input into that process and not a veto over it.

    Why is this friction not an isolated episode?

    1. A pending money order against the State: The High Court directed the Punjab government on 3 August to release pending dearness allowance instalments and arrears to employees and pensioners.
    2. The State has gone to the Supreme Court: Punjab has filed a special leave petition against that ruling, delivered by a division bench headed by the same judge while he was acting Chief Justice.
    3. Policies stayed and rolled back: The High Court stayed the Land Pooling Policy, 2025 in August 2025 and the Punjab Unified Building Rules, 2025 in December 2025, and the State later withdrew or reversed both.
    4. Welfare corpus diversion blocked: In July 2026 the High Court stayed a proposal to divert the Punjab Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board corpus to other schemes.
    5. The electoral clock: Punjab Assembly elections are less than six months away, which gives the confrontation a political audience it would otherwise lack.

    Challenges to the Memorandum of Procedure

    1. It carries no legal force: The Memorandum is an executive document, so no participant can be compelled to complete a step within any time. Eg. The revised Memorandum sought after the National Judicial Appointments Commission judgment of 2015 has still not been settled between the government and the collegium.
      The Fix: Give the Memorandum statutory backing, so each stage carries a deadline that a court can enforce.
    2. Delay operates as a silent veto: The Union government can sit on a recommendation without formally rejecting it, which produces the outcome of a rejection without the record of one. Eg. Names reiterated by the collegium have remained pending with the government for well over a year on repeated occasions.
      The Fix: Treat a reiterated recommendation as notified if the government does not act on it within a fixed period.
    3. The consultation record is closed: Views submitted by a State or a Governor are never published, so a claim that they were ignored cannot be tested by anyone. Eg. Punjab’s objection here rests on a file that no one outside the process can read.
      The Fix: Publish the sequence of consultations for every appointment, with the date each input was received and acted on.
    4. Transfers proceed without stated grounds: The Memorandum does not set out the criteria on which a judge is moved from one High Court to another. Eg. Collegium resolutions record transfers as being in the interest of better administration of justice, with no further reasoning.
      The Fix: Require a written and published reason for every transfer proposal before it is acted upon.

    Conclusion

    The appointment has gone through and the disagreement it exposed has not. A State can be consulted on a High Court appointment while nobody is obliged to wait for its answer, which makes the consultation real in form and empty in effect. That gap is not a Punjab problem, and it will recur wherever a State government and the Centre sit on opposite sides. Closing it needs a written timeline binding on both, not a resolution passed after the file has already moved.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS2, 10 marks] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.”

  • Draft SIR list shows anomalies, absurdities. Independent audit is needed

    Why in the News

    An analysis of the Election Commission of India’s draft rolls finds that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has removed 13.37 crore names at the draft stage. The revision began as a pilot in Bihar, where 65 lakh names were deleted, and has since run across the country in three phases. Deletion rates have risen with each phase rather than falling. India’s electorate stood at about 98 crore at the 2024 Lok Sabha election, against an adult voting-age population of about 99 crore. The electorate is projected to fall to about 88 crore against a projected adult population of 103 crore. Either the population projection or the electoral roll is badly wrong.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls?

    1. A house-to-house verification: The Special Intensive Revision is a time-bound enumeration in which Booth Level Officers visit each household and verify every existing entry on the roll.
    2. Different from the annual revision: The routine summary revision only processes claims and objections that voters themselves file. The intensive revision re-verifies the entire roll on the ground.
    3. The sequence: Enumeration produces a draft roll. Claims and objections against that draft are then decided before a final roll is published.

    What do the national numbers show?

    1. The expected final figure: Publication of a draft roll is usually followed by more additions than deletions. Final deletions are estimated at over 11.5 crore once the remaining States are counted in.
    2. What is still outstanding: Draft rolls have not been released for Nagaland and Tripura. The revision has not begun in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.
    3. The scale against the early warning: An early projection that a nationwide revision could delete up to 10 crore names was dismissed when it was made. The draft-stage figure has already passed it.

    What explains the gap between the electorate and the adult population?

    1. Only two readings are available: Either the official population projection is far too high, at under 125 crore rather than the projected figure above 145 crore. Or close to 15 crore voting-age Indians are absent from the roll.
    2. Correct deletions do not settle it: The pre-revision roll carried accumulated errors and spurious names, so a majority of the deletions may well be correct. A wrongful share of even one third still leaves an unacceptable number of voters removed.
    3. Under-enfranchisement is the other half: Eligible voters who never appeared on the pre-revision roll, those struck off before the revision started, and young voters who should have been added during it are all outside the count. The revision was not designed to find any of them.

    How have the three phases differed?

    1. Phase one, Bihar: Deletions of 65 lakh amounted to a fall of under 8 per cent in the elector-to-population ratio (the electorate expressed as a share of the adult population). Judicial scrutiny brought the final figure down to 45 lakh.
    2. Phase two, 13 States: Deletions reached nearly 13 per cent of the roll, totalling 6.5 crore. Public attention concentrated on the targeted removal of Muslim voters in West Bengal.
    3. Phase three, the rest of the country: Deletions in the draft rolls crossed 17 per cent, totalling 6.1 crore. The phase followed a Supreme Court order that left the Commission free to proceed.
    4. The direction of travel: Each phase recorded a higher deletion rate than the phase before it, and each attracted less scrutiny than the phase before it.

    Which States account for the largest deletions?

    1. Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra lead: Uttar Pradesh recorded 2.9 crore deletions and Maharashtra 2.1 crore.
    2. The next tier: Karnataka recorded 1.08 crore, Tamil Nadu 97.4 lakh, Gujarat 73.7 lakh and West Bengal 58.2 lakh.
    3. Mid-sized States: Delhi recorded 47.6 lakh, Andhra Pradesh 44.9 lakh, Jharkhand 43.6 lakh, Madhya Pradesh 42.7 lakh, Rajasthan 41.9 lakh and Haryana 33.9 lakh.
    4. Smaller totals: Chhattisgarh recorded 27.1 lakh, Kerala 24.1 lakh, Punjab 20.7 lakh, Odisha 20.1 lakh and Uttarakhand 8.3 lakh.
    5. Where the rate is abnormal: Haryana, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Delhi recorded deletion rates well above the pattern for their phase.
    6. What the table excludes: Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya and the Union Territories are left out because population projections are unavailable for them. The projections used are drawn from the Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections of July 2020.

    Why are the deletion categories the core of the problem?

    1. Deaths are a small and stable share: Voters marked “dead” held steady at around 3 per cent of total deletions across all three phases.
    2. The two large categories are undefined: Most deletions were recorded as “absent” or “shifted”. Neither term has been defined so far, and local electoral officials have applied both at their own discretion.
    3. A further fifth is flagged rather than resolved: About one-fifth of the remaining electors face further scrutiny as “unmapped” or under “logical discrepancy”. No standard operating procedure states how such a flag is to be decided.
    4. The flag clusters oddly: Odisha, Jharkhand and Telangana show unusually high shares of “logical discrepancy”. A uniform software check applied across States would not produce that distribution.

    What happens to a voter deleted before the revision starts?

    1. No enumeration form is ever issued: A voter removed before the revision formally begins never receives an enumeration form. That removal is not counted as a revision deletion at all.
    2. The scale of pre-revision removals: Over 14 lakh such deletions took place between 12 May, when the third phase schedule was announced, and the day that phase formally began. Over 8 lakh of them were in Maharashtra.
    3. Delhi is the clearest case: Delhi lost more than 11 lakh voters before the revision was launched, counting from its assembly election in February the previous year. Its roll then fell from 1.56 crore to 98 lakh after the draft was published.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. The burden of proof sits on the voter: The exercise requires an elector to establish entitlement rather than requiring the state to establish ineligibility. Eg. Electors in Bihar were asked to produce legacy documents such as a parent’s entry in an earlier intensive revision roll.
      The Fix: Place the burden on the electoral registration officer to record a written ground and serve notice before any name is struck off.
    2. Field officers carry unworkable targets: Verifying every household within a few weeks exceeds the staff assigned to the task. Eg. Deaths and suicides among Booth Level Officers were reported during the West Bengal phase.
      The Fix: Fix a maximum number of households per officer and extend the enumeration window instead of compressing verification into the deletion window.
    3. Grievance redress runs slower than the roll: Claims and objections are decided after the deadline that freezes the roll for an approaching election. Eg. Only a fraction of the claims filed in West Bengal were disposed of before the roll was frozen.
      The Fix: Bar publication of a final roll until every claim against the draft carries a written and appealable order.
    4. Deletion data is not published in usable form: Rolls are released as image files, so any independent count of deletions has to be reconstructed by hand. Eg. The national deletion total here had to be assembled State by State from separately published draft rolls.
      The Fix: Publish booth-level deletion lists carrying the recorded ground for each name, in a downloadable machine-readable format.

    Conclusion

    The revision was justified as a clean-up and is producing a shrinking electorate. A roll that removes names far faster than it adds them cannot be defended as an accuracy exercise, and the Commission cannot certify its own accuracy. What is contested is not whether errors existed on the old roll but whether their correction followed any stated rule. An audit by a body outside the Commission is the only thing that would settle that, and nothing in the current process provides for one.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Electoral Roll Revision

    1. Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in the Election Commission of India.
    2. Article 325: Mandates one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency and bars exclusion from it on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
    3. Article 326: Provides for universal adult suffrage, with the voting age lowered to 18 by the Sixty-first Amendment.
    4. Article 327: Empowers Parliament to legislate on all matters relating to elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls.
    5. Article 329: Bars courts from questioning an electoral law or a completed election except through an election petition.

    Laws and Rules Governing Electoral Roll Revision

    1. Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides for the allocation of seats and for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
    2. Section 19: Sets the conditions for registration, being 18 years of age and ordinarily resident in the constituency.
    3. Section 21: Authorises the Commission to order a special revision of a roll at any time, for reasons recorded in writing.
    4. Section 16: Lists the disqualifications for registration, including non-citizenship and unsoundness of mind.
    5. Section 31: Penalises a false declaration made in connection with the preparation or revision of a roll.
    6. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Lay down the procedure for house-to-house enumeration, publication of the draft roll, and disposal of claims and objections.
    7. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the conduct of elections and confines a challenge to a completed election to an election petition before the High Court.

    Government Initiatives for Electoral Roll Management

    1. ECINET: A single digital interface launched in 2026 that consolidates more than 40 separate Commission applications used by voters and officials.
    2. National Voters’ Services Portal: Allows a voter to register, correct and verify roll details online without visiting a registration centre.
    3. Electors Photo Identity Card delivery standard: A revised operating procedure requires an updated identity card to reach the elector within 15 days of an update.
    4. Common electoral roll proposal: A single roll for parliamentary, assembly and local body elections, intended to end the parallel rolls maintained separately by State Election Commissions.

    Key Facts about Electoral Roll Revision

    1. National Voters’ Day: Observed on 25 January each year, marking the founding of the Election Commission in 1950.
    2. Frequency of intensive revision: An intensive revision of this kind has been carried out about 14 times, with earlier rounds in 1983, 1995, 2002 and 2004.
    3. The first rolls: The first intensive revisions ran between 1952 and 1956 to build the country’s first reliable voter database.
    4. Qualifying dates: Since the 2021 amendment to the election laws, a person turning 18 may register with reference to any of four qualifying dates in a year, 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October.

    Way Forward

    1. Link the roll to the civil registration system: Automatic removal of deceased electors through the death register would take the largest legitimate deletion category out of field discretion entirely.
    2. Permanent electoral tribunals: A standing tribunal for roll disputes would replace the temporary appellate arrangements assembled around each revision.
    3. Geo-tagged field verification: Recording each house visit with a location and time stamp would make a claimed visit checkable after the fact.

    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?”

  • 1.85 lakh names out of Manipur, Sikkim poll rolls after SIR

    Why in the News

    The Election Commission of India has published the final photo electoral rolls of Manipur and Sikkim following the Special Intensive Revision. The revision removed 1,32,456 names in Manipur and 52,614 in Sikkim, 1.85 lakh in all, amounting to 6.3 per cent of the Manipur roll and 11.2 per cent of the Sikkim roll. The bulk of the removals were not adjudicated findings of ineligibility. They followed from enumeration forms that were never received in Manipur and from electors who could not be matched to an earlier roll in Sikkim. Kuki-Zo groups have said that community members displaced by the ethnic conflict that erupted on 3 May 2023 stand to be struck off, and the government has sought to dispel that apprehension.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision?

    1. The roll is rebuilt rather than carried forward: An intensive revision generates an enumeration form for every existing elector and requires it back, in place of the summary practice of amending the previous roll.
    2. A form not returned means a name not carried: An elector whose form is not received is excluded from the draft roll at the outset, before any question of eligibility is examined.
    3. Claims and objections follow the draft: The draft roll is published, claims and objections are filed and processed within a fixed window, and the final photo electoral roll issues after that.

    What do the Manipur numbers show?

    1. The roll shrank by 1,32,456: Manipur held 20,93,076 electors before the revision and holds 19,60,620 after it.
    2. The draft did the deleting: The draft roll published on 5 July carried 19,34,399 electors, against 1,58,677 whose enumeration forms were not received and who were excluded at that stage.
    3. The exclusion heads: Of those excluded, 72,473 were identified as shifted, 43,000 as deceased, 34,740 as absent, 7,394 as duplicate entries and 1,070 under other categories.
    4. The claims stage added more than it removed: 96,985 claims and objections were processed, 56,871 electors were included and 30,650 were deleted from the draft roll.

    What do the Sikkim numbers show?

    1. The roll shrank by 52,614: Sikkim held 4,71,081 electors before the revision and holds 4,18,467 after it.
    2. Mapping decided who was questioned: Of the 4,33,294 electors in the July draft, 3,61,159 or 83.35 per cent were mapped to their own or their parents’ details in a previous qualifying roll or the last revision. The remaining 72,135, or 16.65 per cent, could not be mapped.
    3. A digital flag added a second category: Among the mapped electors the Election Commission’s system identified 52,384 as carrying “logical discrepancies”.
    4. Notices ran far ahead of findings: 1,24,519 electors from the unmapped and discrepancy categories were issued notices for hearings, and 16,485 were found ineligible after verification.
    5. A separate deletion route: Another 324 electors were deleted through Form 7 on grounds including death or shifting, taking deletions during claims and objections to 16,809.

    Why do the Kuki-Zo objections matter to these figures?

    1. Displacement and shifting look identical on the roll: The largest single exclusion head in Manipur is 72,473 electors recorded as shifted, and internal displacement is precisely what produces an elector who is not found at a registered address.
    2. The instrument has no displaced category: A person living in a relief camp is neither a resident at the registered address nor an elector anywhere else, and the enumeration exercise offers no third classification.
    3. The apprehension preceded the exercise: Kuki-Zo groups raised the fear both before and during the revision, and the assurance offered was administrative rather than a change in the classification rules.

    What does the composition of the final rolls show?

    1. Manipur’s roll is majority women: 10,06,962 women electors against 9,53,350 men, a ratio of 1,056 women for every 1,000 men, alongside 308 third gender electors.
    2. Sikkim’s roll runs the other way: 2,12,534 men against 2,05,931 women, with two third gender electors.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. The burden of proof moves onto the elector: A person already on the roll must re-establish entitlement rather than have it presumed. Eg. In the Bihar revision of 2025, Aadhaar did not figure among the documents initially listed for establishing eligibility.
      The Fix: Fix the admissible document list before the enumeration begins and bar additions or subtractions to it mid-exercise.
    2. Migrant and displaced electors are structurally disadvantaged: Enumeration works from a fixed address, and a seasonal migrant or a person in a relief camp has none for the reference period. Eg. An elector sheltering after the 2023 Manipur conflict cannot register at the camp and cannot be enumerated at home.
      The Fix: Recognise a relief camp or worksite address as ordinary residence for the duration of the revision.
    3. Deletion takes effect before an appeal is decided: A name goes off the roll on the officer’s finding, and the appeal runs afterwards. Eg. Appeals against inclusion or exclusion lie to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
      The Fix: Suspend the deletion until the statutory appeal window closes, so the roll reflects a final decision.
    4. A deleted elector has no automatic route back: Restoration is a fresh application rather than a correction of the same file. Eg. An elector deleted as absent must apply again under Form 6 to be re-enrolled.
      The Fix: Restore a name automatically on production of proof within the same revision cycle, without a fresh application.

    Conclusion

    The revision has produced a smaller and internally consistent roll, and it has not produced a finding that 1.85 lakh people were ineligible to vote. Two different tests are being reported as one: a documentary test of whether a form came back or a record could be matched, and a substantive test of citizenship, age and residence. The exercise is now closed in both States and the appeal machinery is the only route left for a person struck off. Whether that machinery can absorb objections at this scale, in a State where a section of the electorate has been displaced for three years, is the open question.

    Back2Basics: Revision of electoral rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1950

    1. Statutory basis: Section 21 empowers the Election Commission to prepare and revise electoral rolls, either as a matter of course before an election or by special direction.
    2. Two modes of revision: An intensive revision prepares the roll afresh through house-to-house enumeration. A summary revision carries the existing roll forward and invites claims and objections against it.
    3. The forms: Form 6 seeks inclusion of a name, Form 7 objects to an inclusion or seeks a deletion, and Form 8 covers correction of particulars and transposition within a constituency.
    4. Qualifying dates: Eligibility is tested with reference to 1 January, with 1 April, 1 July and 1 October added as further qualifying dates from 2022.

    [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?”