Infirmities in the Special Intensive Revision (sir) of Electoral Rolls

Why in the News ?

The Election Commission of India (ECI), empowered under Article 324, ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 States/UTs including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. The decision—taken months before major Assembly elections—has triggered political protests and legal challenges before the Supreme Court regarding legality, timing, and citizenship verification.

About the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

• SIR is a comprehensive door-to-door verification exercise involving enumeration, verification, and adjudication of claims and objections.
• The last SIR was conducted in 2002–03.
• ECI cites demographic changes due to migration, urbanisation, and mortality as the need for revision.
• Opposition parties argue the timing is questionable since a Summary Revision was already completed in 2024.
• Example: A similar SIR before the Bihar Assembly Elections led to allegations of voter exclusion and potential manipulation.

Legal Framework for Electoral Roll Revision

Key concern: Conducting SIR close to elections deviates from legislative intent, raising administrative and constitutional issues.

Issues and Concerns

1. Question of Timing

• Conducting SIR just before elections may:
  • Disrupt electoral preparedness.
  • Cause voter exclusion due to incomplete verification.
  • Reduce public trust in ECI’s neutrality.

2. Citizenship Verification Controversy

• Under Article 326, only Indian citizens can be enrolled as voters.
• ECI demanded citizenship proof, excluding Aadhaar because it does not confirm nationality.
• Supreme Court’s interim order allows Aadhaar only as identity proof, not citizenship—creating ambiguity.

Core Question: Does the ECI have the authority to determine citizenship documents?

• Citizenship determination falls under Articles 5–11 and the Citizenship Act, 1955, administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• Hence, ECI’s demand may be considered ultra vires (beyond its authority).

Judicial Precedent

Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995)

• Supreme Court held that once a person’s name is in the electoral roll, it must be treated as valid.
• Removal or alteration without solid legal basis is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Implication: ECI cannot unilaterally question citizenship or delete voters without a legally established mechanism.

Democratic and Institutional Implications

Significance of the Issue

Way Forward

1. Legal Clarity: Clear statutory rules required for citizenship verification under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Transparent Coordination: MHA and ECI must coordinate to avoid overlapping mandates.
3. Institutional Safeguards: Independent audits or Parliamentary oversight can enhance credibility.
4. Public Awareness: Citizens need guidance to ensure no legitimate voter is excluded.