Context

• The Election Commission of India (ECI), empowered under Article 324 of the Constitution, bears the crucial duty of ensuring free, fair, and credible elections.
• However, the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ordered by the ECI in twelve States and Union Territories, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, has triggered strong protests and even legal challenges before the Supreme Court of India.
• Conducted only months before key Assembly elections, the SIR has raised serious questions about timing, legality, and voter citizenship verification.
• This controversy highlights deeper constitutional tensions between administrative discretion and democratic safeguards. 

The Context and Nature of the SIR

• The SIR represents a comprehensive, door-to-door revision of electoral rolls involving enumeration, verification, and adjudication of claims and objections.
• The ECI justified this move by citing demographic changes caused by urbanisation, migration, and mortality since the last SIR in 2002–03.
• However, the Opposition and State governments criticised the haste and timing of the exercise, noting that a summary revision had already been completed in 2024.
• The Bihar Assembly election, preceded by a similar SIR, became the testing ground for these concerns, with opponents alleging that such massive revisions close to elections could disenfranchise voters and compromise electoral fairness.

The Legal Framework: Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950

• The legal foundation for electoral roll revision is laid down in Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950, which distinguishes between two types of revisions:
  • Revision before general elections: A summary revision, mandatory before every Lok Sabha or Assembly election.
  • Revision in any year: An intensive revision, undertaken at the ECI’s discretion to ensure the accuracy of rolls.
• As per Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the former is summary in nature, while the latter is intensive, almost akin to preparing a new electoral roll.
• Therefore, intensive revisions are ideally delinked from election cycles, to be conducted when no imminent elections are due.

The Question of Timing and Administrative Discretion

• While the ECI’s authority to revise rolls is undisputed, its decision to conduct an SIR immediately before elections is deeply problematic.
• Between 2003 and 2024, India witnessed five general elections and numerous State polls, yet no such SIR was ordered.
• This sudden urgency raises concerns of opacity, haste, and potential bias.
• An intensive revision requires massive fieldwork, public verification, and time for appeals, all of which may be compromised under electoral deadlines.
• Such timing risks damaging public trust in the ECI, an institution whose credibility depends on both neutrality and perception of fairness.

The Central Controversy in the SIR: Citizenship Verification and Constitutional Boundaries

• Under Article 326, only citizens of India can be enrolled as voters.
• The ECI demanded documentary proof of citizenship but excluded Aadhaar, arguing that it does not establish nationality.
• However, the Supreme Court’s interim order directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as a valid proof of identity, if not citizenship, exposing a grey area between identity verification and nationality confirmation.
• This raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can the ECI independently determine which documents prove citizenship?
  The Constitution (Articles 5–11) and the Citizenship Act, 1955 vest this authority solely in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• Thus, the ECI’s unilateral specification of acceptable documents is ultra vires, beyond its legal authority.
• Since the MHA has not notified a definitive list of citizenship documents, the ECI’s improvisation creates legal ambiguity and risks arbitrary exclusion.
• Such action violates Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to fair procedure), as it can lead to unjust disenfranchisement.

Judicial Precedent and Democratic and Institutional Implications

• Judicial Precedent: The Lal Babu Hussein Case (1995)
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lal Babu Hussein & Others v. Electoral Registration Officer & Others (1995) provides crucial precedent.
  • The Court observed that once a voter’s name is included in the roll, it must be presumed that all statutory procedures were followed.
  • Therefore, removal of names without strong legal justification is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
• Democratic and Institutional Implications
  • The SIR controversy transcends mere legality; it touches the moral and democratic essence of electoral governance.
  • The electoral roll is not just an administrative record; it is the foundation of popular sovereignty.
  • Any process that risks excluding legitimate citizens undermines the inclusiveness and integrity of Indian democracy.
  • The overlapping jurisdictions of the ECI and the MHA, combined with the absence of legislative clarity, create a vacuum of accountability.

Conclusion

• The SIR of electoral rolls exposes critical tensions between administrative autonomy and constitutional accountability.
• While the ECI’s intent to maintain accurate voter rolls is legitimate, the timing, scope, and procedural ambiguities of the SIR demand scrutiny.
• The absence of a defined legal framework for citizenship verification has led to institutional overreach and citizen vulnerability.
• Moving forward, both the Union Government and the ECI must ensure transparency, coordination, and fairness in electoral roll management.