Introduction
The accuracy and integrity of India’s electoral rolls lie at the very heart of its democratic process. To safeguard this integrity, the Election Commission of India (ECI) periodically undertakes Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drives—a door-to-door, time-bound verification of voters aimed at purging inaccuracies and ensuring universal inclusion.
While SIR is legally backed by constitutional and statutory mandates, its implementation across various states has triggered administrative challenges, political controversies, and judicial scrutiny. This article examines the legal foundation, methodology, and ground realities of SIR, providing a statewise overview of its execution and the emerging constitutional questions it raises.
Legal Foundation of SIR: Constitutional and Statutory Framework
The legal authority for conducting Special Intensive Revision flows from two principal sources:
- Article 324 of the Constitution of India – which vests the ECI with the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, including the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
- Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 – which authorizes the Commission to maintain, correct, and revise electoral rolls periodically.
The Election Commission’s operational orders and Booth Level Officer (BLO) handbooks further detail procedural standards, such as door-to-door enumeration, draft publication, and claims and objections windows. These orders hold quasi-legislative authority and must comply with principles of due process and administrative fairness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Objectives of the Special Intensive Revision
The SIR is not a routine updating exercise. It is a comprehensive re-verification process intended to:
- Correct large-scale discrepancies in existing rolls;
- Identify deceased or duplicate voters;
- Include newly eligible citizens turning 18;
- Ensure inclusion of internal migrants and marginalized communities;
- Eliminate bogus or ghost entries that compromise electoral integrity.
Through its intensive character, SIR strengthens both electoral transparency and citizen confidence—key constitutional goals of free and fair elections.
Nationwide Methodology and Operational Structure
The ECI’s SIR follows a five-stage legal procedure:
- Door-to-Door Enumeration: BLOs physically verify voter data at each household, collecting filled-in enumeration forms and recording corrections or new applications.
- No-Document Policy (in certain phases): To minimize coercion, enumerators are often instructed not to collect identity documents on the spot; instead, verification is done later through self-declaration and database matching.
- Historic Roll Comparison: In some states, 2002 rolls are used as a baseline for matching lineage entries—an approach that raises practical and legal challenges where migration or name variations exist.
- Draft Roll Publication: The verified list is publicly displayed, allowing citizens to file claims and objections.
- Final Roll Certification: After disposal of objections, the rolls are finalized and certified by the ECI under Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People Act.
This sequence ensures compliance with audi alteram partem—the legal principle that no one should be excluded without an opportunity to be heard.
Implementation Across States: Ground Realities and Challenges
1. West Bengal
West Bengal’s SIR has become the most politically charged. The state government and several political parties have questioned the ECI’s intent, alleging that the revision could be used for targeted deletions. Petitions have reached the Supreme Court, challenging procedural fairness and alleged discrimination. Despite administrative efficiency in certain districts, public protests and misinformation have marred smooth execution.
2. Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh, included in Phase II of the 2025–26 SIR rollout, represents both the scale and complexity of implementation. With over 15 crore voters, the challenge lies in maintaining uniformity and due process. The ECI has trained BLOs extensively, but opposition parties have demanded greater transparency and third-party monitoring to prevent wrongful exclusions.
3. Bihar
Bihar’s earlier SIR phase is often cited as a cautionary example. The revision led to a 6% decline in registered voters, triggering public debate on data accuracy and administrative lapses. Although the ECI declared the exercise largely successful, civil society groups questioned the lack of awareness campaigns and grievance redress mechanisms.
4. Kerala
Kerala’s experience has been comparatively positive. The state election machinery established public helpdesks and digital grievance cells to guide citizens. The ECI’s emphasis on community outreach and multilingual communication significantly reduced confusion. Kerala’s model underscores that transparency and accessibility can transform administrative compliance into citizen trust.
5. Other States
States like Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Goa, and Puducherry have also initiated SIR activities. Implementation levels vary, depending on political climate, bureaucratic capacity, and public participation. While enumeration progress has been steady, local-level logistical hurdles—such as BLO shortages and incomplete training—persist.
Emerging Legal and Constitutional Issues
1. Separation of Functions
Some critics argue that SIR’s verification practices, particularly those referencing ancestral data, verge on citizenship verification, which constitutionally falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Courts are therefore asked to delineate the boundary between electoral verification (ECI’s domain) and citizenship determination (MHA’s domain).
2. Due Process and Equality
Exclusions without proper notice or hearing violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity). In several petitions, citizens have alleged wrongful deletions due to clerical errors or data mismatches, prompting calls for enhanced procedural safeguards.
3. Judicial Oversight
Multiple cases are pending before the Supreme Court and various High Courts seeking:
- Stays on ongoing SIR exercises,
- Directions for uniform SOPs across states,
- Independent monitoring by judicial or civil society observers.
Judicial intervention is therefore expected to shape SIR’s procedural evolution in the coming months.
Administrative and Legal Recommendations
To ensure that SIR serves its constitutional purpose without infringing individual rights, the following legal safeguards are essential:
- Publication of Clear SOPs: The ECI should issue a standardized, multilingual Standard Operating Procedure accessible to the public.
- Enhanced Notice and Redress Mechanisms: Widespread publicity of draft roll dates and local helpdesks must be mandated to safeguard due process.
- Independent Monitoring: Judicially appointed observers or accredited NGOs can act as neutral monitors of enumeration practices.
- Transparency in Data Use: If older rolls or digital databases are used for matching, the methodology should be disclosed publicly to avoid suspicion of arbitrary exclusions.
- Institutional Coordination: The ECI should clarify procedural demarcation with the MHA to prevent jurisdictional overlap and constitutional conflict.
The Road Ahead
As the SIR progresses through successive phases, the ECI faces the dual responsibility of upholding electoral integrity while preserving public faith in its impartiality. States that emphasize administrative openness and citizen cooperation—as seen in Kerala—demonstrate that transparent implementation can minimize litigation and political tension.
Conversely, politically polarized states like West Bengal reveal that even legally sound initiatives can falter if procedural fairness and communication are neglected.
Conclusion
The Special Intensive Revision represents one of the most ambitious exercises in electoral housekeeping ever undertaken by the Election Commission of India. Legally, it stands on firm ground—anchored in Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Yet, its success ultimately depends on how law is translated into administrative fairness at the grassroots.
In a democracy as vast as India, every entry on the electoral roll signifies a constitutional promise—the right to be heard, to vote, and to shape governance. The true measure of SIR’s success will therefore not be in the number of deletions or corrections made, but in how faithfully it protects this promise for every citizen.
