Editorial-04/10/2026
Obstacle race: On Special Intensive Revision exercise
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI), was ostensibly a housekeeping exercise to “clean” voter lists. In practice, however, it has become what a leading editorial aptly terms an “obstacle race” — a process so fraught with procedural irregularities, mass deletions, and onerous re-enrolment burdens that it threatens the very principle of universal adult franchise.
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
The SIR is an official process undertaken by the ECI to comprehensively update and revise electoral rolls. Its stated objectives are:
- Inclusion of newly eligible voters (those who turned 18 since the last revision).
- Removal of ineligible names (deceased voters, duplicates, non-citizens).
- Correction of existing details (address, name spelling, age).
The Scale of Deletions: Numbers that Alarm
Across 30 States and Union Territories, nearly 13.4 crore electors have been removed from draft rolls — approximately 14% of the pre-revision electorate. More troubling is the trend: each phase has deleted a larger share than the last:
- Bihar (pilot): 8.3% deletion.
- Phase 2 (12 States/UTs): 12.9% deletion.
- Phase 3: 17% deletion.
Mechanisms of Exclusion: How Voters Were Deleted
Several procedural features have made deletion easy and restoration difficult:
1. “Logical Discrepancies” as a New Criterion
A new exclusion ground — “logical discrepancies” — was first used in West Bengal and then extended to a Union Territory and beyond. This vague category allows officials to flag entries for deletion based on inferred inconsistencies (e.g., age mismatches across records, address anomalies) rather than concrete proof of ineligibility.
The problem: such discrepancies can arise from clerical errors, migration, or data-entry mistakes — not necessarily from fraudulent enrolment. Yet the burden shifts to the voter to prove they belong.
2. Onus on Electors to Prove Eligibility After Deletion
The SIR process, as implemented, often follows a “delete first, verify later” approach. Once a name is removed from the draft roll, the elector must:
- File a fresh application (typically Form 6 for new enrolment).
- Provide documentary proof of eligibility.
- Navigate a bureaucratic process that many find opaque and intimidating.
3. Alteration of Form 6 Without Rule Amendment
In a move flagged as procedurally illegal, the ECI altered Form 6 (the standard application for new voter enrolment) to ask whether the applicant, their parents, or grandparents were on the last SIR roll. This change was made without amending the underlying rules under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950/1951.
Implications:
- It creates an extra-legal barrier to enrolment.
- It disadvantages first-generation voters, migrants, and those whose families were never on earlier rolls.
- It undermines the rule-of-law principle that administrative forms must conform to notified rules.
4. Centralised Roll Database and Mass Deletion Requests
A centralised electoral roll database in Delhi enabled mass processing of deletion requests. In West Bengal alone, 16.1 lakh requests were filed to remove electors who had already been cleared by judicial officers in earlier disputes.
Centralisation can improve efficiency, but without robust local verification and appeal mechanisms, it also enables large-scale, error-prone deletions that are hard to reverse.
Democratic and Constitutional Implications
1. Threat to Universal Adult Franchise
Universal adult franchise — the right of every adult citizen to vote, regardless of caste, religion, education, or economic status — is enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution. The editorial argues that the SIR, as conducted, undermines this right by:
- Disenfranchising large numbers of eligible voters.
- Making re-enrolment so onerous that many give up.
- Creating a chilling effect where citizens fear arbitrary deletion.
2. Electoral Democracy and Free, Fair Elections
Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Mass disenfranchisement — even if unintentional — distorts the electorate and can alter election outcomes. If certain communities (e.g., migrants, minorities, the urban poor) are disproportionately affected, the representativeness of elected bodies is compromised.
3. Accountability of Constitutional Bodies
The ECI is a constitutional body under Article 324, tasked with superintendence, direction, and control of elections. With great power comes great responsibility — and accountability.
The editorial highlights internal dissent within the ECI: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi could have overruled the CEC but reportedly did not. This raises questions about:
- Collegial decision-making within the ECI.
- Whether the CEC’s primacy is being used to push through controversial measures.
- The need for stronger internal checks and transparent reasoning in major policy shifts.
4. Role of the Judiciary
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of electoral roll revisions in principle. However, constitutional validity of a power does not immunise its misuse or procedurally flawed execution.
Judicial oversight remains critical to:
- Examine whether deletions followed due process.
- Ensure that changes to forms and criteria have legal backing.
- Protect citizens’ right to vote as part of Article 21 (right to life and liberty interpreted to include democratic participation).
The ECI’s Implicit Admission of Flaws
In a telling development, the ECI has now asked Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to restore deleted voters. This is effectively an admission that many deletions were wrongful or at least procedurally suspect.
Yet this corrective measure comes late and places the onus again on local officials to fix a problem created at the top. It also does not address:
- Why such large-scale errors occurred in the first place.
- Whether similar flaws will recur in future revisions.
- How to compensate those who may have already missed elections due to deletion.
Federal Friction and Political Fallout
The SIR has also triggered federal friction. Several state governments have accused the ECI of overreach and of using a centralised approach that bypasses local knowledge and accountability. Protests, internet shutdowns, and mass detentions around Gandhi Jayanti underscore how deeply polarising the issue has become.
Politically, the timing is sensitive. With multiple state and national elections in the offing, any perception that the ECI is tilting the playing field — even inadvertently — damages public trust.
Comparative Perspective: Electoral Roll Revisions Elsewhere
In mature democracies, electoral roll updates are:
- Continuous or periodic, not sudden and massive.
- Transparent, with clear criteria and public notices.
- Appeal-friendly, with easy mechanisms to challenge deletions.
- Inclusion-oriented, with outreach to ensure no eligible voter is left out.
- Phased but accelerating in deletions.
- Opaque in criteria (e.g., “logical discrepancies”).
- Burden-shifting, making citizens prove eligibility after deletion.
- Centralised, reducing local oversight.
What Should Be Done? Recommendations?
To restore confidence and align the SIR with constitutional values, several measures are needed:
1. Immediate Moratorium on Deletions
Until a thorough review is conducted, the ECI should pause further deletions, especially under vague criteria like “logical discrepancies.”
2. Transparent Criteria and Public Notification
All grounds for deletion must be:
- Clearly defined in rules (not just internal guidelines).
- Publicly notified in multiple languages.
- Accompanied by examples to reduce arbitrary interpretation.
3. Restore Rule-Based Forms
Form 6 and other enrolment forms must conform strictly to notified rules. Any change should go through proper rule-amendment processes, with parliamentary or stakeholder consultation where appropriate.
4. Shift Burden of Proof Back to the State
The default should be inclusion, not exclusion. Deletions should require:
- Concrete evidence of ineligibility (e.g., death certificate, proven duplication).
- Prior notice to the elector with an opportunity to respond.
- An easy, time-bound appeal mechanism.
5. Strengthen Local Oversight
BLOs and local electoral officers should have greater say in:
- Verifying discrepancies before deletion.
- Conducting door-to-door verification in high-deletion areas.
- Maintaining local records that reflect ground realities (migration, informal settlements, etc.).
6. Independent Audit and Review
An independent committee — possibly including retired judges, civil society representatives, and opposition nominees — should:
- Audit the SIR process across phases.
- Identify systemic flaws and responsible officers.
- Recommend structural reforms to prevent recurrence.
7. Compensation and Special Enrolment Drives
For those wrongly deleted:
- Fast-track re-enrolment with minimal documentation.
- Special camps in affected areas.
- Public awareness campaigns to inform citizens of their rights and the correction process.
8. Strengthen ECI’s Internal Governance
The ECI should:
- Record dissenting views in major decisions (like a collegium).
- Publish reasoned orders for significant policy shifts.
- Ensure that the CEC does not act unilaterally on matters affecting franchise.
Broader Lessons for Electoral Governance
The SIR episode offers several enduring lessons:
1. Technology is a Tool, Not a Panacea
Centralised databases and algorithmic matching can improve efficiency, but they also amplify errors if not paired with human oversight and appeal mechanisms. E-governance must be designed with transparency, accountability, and redress as core features — not afterthoughts.
2. Procedural Fairness is Part of Substantive Justice
Even if the goal (clean rolls) is legitimate, unfair procedures can produce unjust outcomes. Constitutional morality demands that high functionaries — including the ECI — act not just within the letter of the law, but in its spirit.
3. Trust is the ECI’s Most Valuable Asset
The ECI’s legitimacy rests on public trust. Once eroded, it is hard to rebuild. Every procedural shortcut, every opaque criterion, every mass deletion without notice chips away at that trust.
4. Electoral Reforms Must Be Inclusive, Not Exclusionary
Reforms should be judged by how they affect the most vulnerable voters — migrants, the poor, minorities, first-generation voters. If a reform disproportionately burdens them, it is likely flawed, regardless of its stated intent.
Conclusion
The phrase “obstacle race” captures the lived experience of many Indians during this SIR: a process where the finish line (being on the electoral roll) keeps moving, and the hurdles (documentation, appeals, opaque criteria) keep multiplying.
Electoral roll revision is necessary, but it must be conducted as an inclusion drive, not a purge. The Constitution’s promise of universal adult franchise is not just a legal provision; it is a moral commitment to every citizen’s equal voice in democracy.
The ECI now faces a choice: double down on a flawed process, or course-correct with transparency, humility, and a renewed commitment to inclusion. The stakes are not just administrative; they are foundational to India’s democratic identity.
Download Pdf
