ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2.0 – Issues, Concerns & Way Forward

Context

• ECI launched SIR 2.0 in 12 States/UTs to re-verify electoral rolls.

• The Hindu editorial warns that the process risks large-scale disenfranchisement and demands greater vigilance from civil society and political parties.

Bihar’s Experience with SIR

Key Features of the Exercise

• Documentation-heavy re-verification of voter eligibility.

• Required fresh proofs and citizenship-linked documentation.

Major Concerns Raised

• Mass disenfranchisement fears materialised.

• Sharp decline in adult-elector ratio.

• Disproportionate deletion of:

  • Women voters

  • Muslim voters

• Presence of:

  • Duplicate names

  • Bogus entries

• Exercise perceived as stealth citizenship screening rather than roll revision.

Issue of Impartiality

ECI's conduct questioned:

• 
  

• Appeared unresponsive to scrutiny.

• Focused more on defending authority rather than ensuring inclusion.

• Doubts over institutional integrity and neutrality.

Supreme Court’s Role

• SC monitored the legality of the exercise.

• Did NOT address core issue:

  • Whether the ECI has legal powers to conduct such an SIR.

  • Whether specific Rules exist for SIR.

• Allowed the exercise to continue.

• Mitigated some procedural problems but failed to prevent discriminatory outcomes.

• Risk of legitimising an unwarranted framework impacting minority and marginalised groups.

Problem of Internal Migrants

Legal Framework

• Section 19, RP Act 1950 → Eligibility requires being “ordinarily resident.”

• Section 20 defines “ordinary residence.”

Why It Is Outdated

• Does not reflect modern migration patterns:

  • Long-term/semi-permanent migrants (education, jobs)

  • Short-term/seasonal migrants

  • Circular migrants (back-and-forth movement)

• Particularly severe issue in states like Tamil Nadu.

Lack of Checks & Balances in SIR

• No clear Rules, oversight, audit, or monitoring.

• Pushes responsibility onto voters to repeatedly “apply and reapply.”

• Asking citizens to submit fresh proofs of citizenship is:

  • Impractical

  • Unfair

  • Against the ECI’s constitutional duty to maintain accurate rolls.

Case for Mandatory Social Audit

What is Social Audit?

• A process of participatory democracy where people audit programmes meant for them.

• Mandated under Articles 243A & 243J.

• Recognised by CAG for mass programme monitoring.

Why Needed for Electoral Rolls

• Ensures transparency and community verification.

• Reduces manipulation and political misuse.

• Ensures maximum inclusion for universal adult franchise.

Past Precedent

• In 2003, under CEC J.M. Lyngdoh, ECI conducted decentralised social audits.

• In Rajasthan alone, 7 lakh corrections were made.

• Demonstrated the effectiveness of gram sabha/ward-level scrutiny.

Editorial’s Recommendations

• ECI must:

  • Frame clear Rules for SIR.

  • Make social audit mandatory.

  • Consult civil society and political parties.

• Necessary to safeguard:

  • Integrity of electoral rolls

  • Inclusiveness

  • Universal adult franchise

  • Democratic legitimacy

UPSC Prelims Pointers

• Article 324 – Powers of ECI

• RP Act 1950 – Electoral roll provisions

• Social Audit – Supported under Articles 243A, 243J; mandated for several schemes

• Precedent – 2003 decentralised social audits ordered by ECI