The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls (SIR) ordered by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 12 States and Union Territories (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Lakshadweep), where elections are due, has provoked strong protests from some State governments — some have challenged it in the Supreme Court of India. The SIR was conducted in Bihar earlier, beginning in June; the Assembly election has just been held in the State.
The Opposition had opposed the SIR in Bihar on various grounds which included the haste with which such a massive exercise was sought to be done. The Opposition challenged it in the Court on the ground that, inter alia, the ECI’s power to conduct such an extensive revision after a summary revision done as recently as in 2024 was unconstitutional. Although the Court made some interim observations and directions to protect a voter’s right, the constitutional issues have not been settled.
The ECI claimed, while justifying the SIR in Bihar, that the last SIR had been conducted in 2002-03 with demographic changes since then due to large-scale urbanisation, migration and death. Therefore, it was necessary to revise the roll comprehensively to reflect the latest demographic picture in the State.
The issue of timing
The ECI, no doubt, has the statutory right to conduct a comprehensive revision of the electoral roll. But the question as to why it should be done just a couple of months before elections to the Assembly has remained unanswered. The point is that intensive revision involves a massive exercise of enumeration which requires enumerators to visit every household and collect data, deal with claims and objections and decide appeals. In fact, between 2003 and 2024, there have been five general elections to the Lok Sabha and many elections in the States and Union Territories. But the ECI did not conduct an SIR anytime during this period, which is unexplainable. Therefore, it is intriguing why the ECI has chosen to conduct an SIR just before the Bihar elections and now a few months before the Assembly elections in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
Also Read | SIR 2.0: List of documents that can be used for SIR in 12 States and UTs
The preparation and the revision of the electoral roll in the country is dealt with under Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950. This section provides for the revision of the roll before the general election to the Lok Sabha or the State Assemblies and revision in “any year” if the ECI so directs.
On revisions and voter citizenship
It also provides for a special revision in any constituency or a part of it on the direction of the ECI. A careful reading of this legal provision would reveal that the revision before the general election is mandatory and the other revisions are done as and when the ECI directs this; the reasons have to be recorded by the ECI for undertaking such revisions.
Further, a closer look at Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 would show that revision of the roll done before the elections under Section 21(2)(a) is summary in character and the revision done under Section 21(2)(b) in ‘any year’ is an intensive revision. The intensive revision is akin to the preparation of a new roll.
Intensive revision, as the name implies, is a comprehensive, and hence time-consuming exercise. Therefore, it should be presumed that this exercise is delinked from the elections and is done in any year when there is no likelihood of a general election. Since the revision before the election is linked to the elections, it can be reasonably assumed that only a summary revision can be done before an election. So, the SIR of the rolls just a couple of months before the elections is not envisaged under the RP Act, 1950.
Another important issue which has come up in the context of the SIR is the nature of the documents which are sought by the ECI to prove the citizenship of voters. Under Article 326 of the Constitution, a voter has to be a citizen of India. So, the issue of citizenship becomes important at the time of enrolment of voters in the electoral list. The documents demanded by the ECI from applicants did not include Aadhaar as the ECI is of the opinion that Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship.
The matter was settled by the Supreme Court, through an interim order, by directing the ECI to accept Aadhaar also as a document to establish the identity of the voter. As a matter of fact, the main question that arises here is what exactly the powers of the ECI are to determine which documents are necessary to prove the citizenship of Indians.
Citizenship is governed by Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act of 1955. Under these, Indian citizenship is acquired by birth, descent, registration and naturalisation. The point to note in the context of the SIR is that the law relating to citizenship is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs and not the ECI. Article 326 says that only a citizen can be the voter, so the question of citizenship of the voter becomes crucially important when the electoral roll is prepared by the ECI which has the exclusive authority to prepare the roll for election to the Assemblies and Parliament. But how does the ECI determine citizenship? Or can the ECI specify the documents to prove the citizenship of voters?
The simple answer is that the ECI is not the authority which can specify the documents to prove citizenship. It can be done only by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India. In fact, the ECI can only verify the documents so notified by the government. It is legally not right for the ECI to say that it has the power to determine the citizenship question and to not accept a particular document for this purpose. But the problem is that the Ministry of Home Affairs has so far not notified any comprehensive list of documents which are required by voters to prove their citizenship. In fact, Article 326 impliedly requires the government to specify such documents. In the absence of such a list, the ECI arrogates to itself the power to specify the list of documents which voters should produce before it to prove their citizenship. How can the ECI exercise a power which is vested in the Home Ministry?
A key decision
It is not clear how many voters whose names were in the roll till 2024 were removed from the voters’ list in Bihar after the SIR on the ground that they are not citizens because they could not produce any of the documents specified by the ECI. In this context, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lal Babu Hussein And Others v. Electoral Registration Officer And Others (1995) is of crucial importance. It said: “In the second situation, since the name is already entered, it must be presumed that before entering his name the concerned officer must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute”.
Watch | DMK vs. Election Commission: The SIR controversy explained | Focus Tamil Nadu
Article 14 forbids any arbitrary action by the state or its agencies. Article 21 forbids the deprivation of the liberty of any person except in accordance with a fair and just procedure. The legal and constitutional authorities need to adhere to these constitutional directions.
P.D.T. Achary is a former Secretary General, Lok Sabha
Published – November 12, 2025 12:16 am IST
