Comparing SIR 2002-04 and 2025-26

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has drawn renewed protests across the country. Former Election Commissioners and Supreme Court judges have questioned the exercise in its current form, while some former judges and bureaucrats have defended it. The current SIR has led to the deletion of around 13.3 crore voters across three phases. Unlike earlier revisions, which had elaborate safeguards to ensure no eligible elector was removed, the present exercise is said to follow a flawed process. 

What is SIR? 

• Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act) empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to carry out a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency, in such manner as it thinks fit. 
• In June 2025, the ECI decided to conduct an SIR across the country, beginning with Bihar in Phase I. 
• Phase II (October 2025 to February 2026) covered nine States and three Union Territories. 
• Phase III, which began in May 2026, covered 16 States and three Union Territories. 
• In May 2026, the Supreme Court held that the ECI was well within its constitutional mandate to conduct an SIR for many or all constituencies in a State. 

How was the Previous SIR Conducted? 

The SIR has been conducted eight times in the past, the last being between 2002 and 2004. The key features of the May 2002 guidelines are as follows: 

• Door-to-door verification: Enumerators verified households in person using a preliminary list prepared from the existing roll. Elected Panchayat members could voluntarily assist in the process. 
• Detailed supervision: Supervisors had to randomly check at least 25% of the households covered by enumerators, and personally verify cases where a house was reported locked during repeated visits. AEROs, EROs and District Election Officers had to check at least 12%, 5% and 2% of households, respectively. 
• Citizenship: The onus of proving citizenship lay on applicants seeking inclusion in the roll for the first time. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Lal Babu Hussein and Others (1995), the ERO had to give adequate probative value to a person's presence in the existing roll. 
• Shifted electors treated as transfers: Entries of electors who had shifted were struck through and marked "S" rather than erased, and enumerators recorded their new address. Supervisors personally verified cases where an entire family had shifted. Since all areas were enumerated together, shifted electors were enrolled at their new address in the same exercise, and the Chief Electoral Officer ensured the old entry was deleted. Only those missed at their new address had to apply during the claims and objections period. 
• Bulk claims rejected: Claims and objections filed in bulk by any individual, organisation or political party were to be summarily rejected. The final roll was prepared only after all claims and objections had been disposed of. 

What are the Key Issues with the Current SIR? 

• Exclusion of untraced electors: Electors who could not be found, or who did not return the form, were excluded from the draft roll even if they had voted in earlier elections. 
• Treatment of shifted electors: Unlike in 2002, shifted electors were not enrolled at their new address in the same exercise. They must file Form 8 or, if missed, apply afresh through Form 6, which is meant for new electors. This contradicts the ECI's own Manual on Electoral Rolls (2023), which requires a notice to traceable shifted electors, and a notice pasted at the last known address in the presence of adult witnesses for untraceable ones, before deletion. 
• Weaker supervision: The notification for Bihar's SIR mandates only 10% random verification by supervisors, along with regular monitoring meetings by the ERO with AEROs, Supervisors and BLOs. 
• Shifting the burden of proof: Electors are required to trace themselves or a parent to the rolls of the last intensive revision, nearly two decades ago, or produce documents establishing citizenship. This is seen as shifting the onus of proving eligibility onto common electors. 
• Software-generated "logical discrepancies": Flags such as spelling differences, more than six voters linked to one ancestor, and parent-child age gaps outside 15 to 45 years have led to the arbitrary exclusion of lakhs of eligible voters. 
• Bulk objections: There have been reports of Form 7 (objection forms) being filed in bulk to remove names. The ECI capped the number of objection forms per individual only on October 9. 
• Legal concerns: Questions have also been raised about the validity of the declaration attached to Form 6, the use of Form 6 for re-enrolling deleted electors, and the cumbersome procedure for disposing of a large number of appeals. 

What is the Scale of Deletion? 

• Around 13.3 crore voters have been deleted across the three phases. 
• About 2.7 crore (20%) were deleted on account of death, and 1.01 crore (7.6%) were flagged as duplicate entries. 
• About 9.5 crore voters (71%) fall under the "absent, shifted and others" category, many of whom could be eligible for re-enrolment. 

What is the Way Forward? 

• A detailed audit of the rolls finalised so far should be undertaken. 
• Eligible claims for re-enrolment should be expedited through home visits and roll updates. 
• Door-to-door enumeration should be the prescribed procedure in States where the SIR is ongoing. 
• Electoral rolls should be finalised only after all claims and objections are disposed of. 
• Under the proviso to Section 21(3) of the RP Act, the pre-SIR rolls can continue in force and be used for upcoming State elections until the SIR is completed after due process. 

Conclusion 

The right to vote is a foundation of Indian democracy, and any revision of the electoral rolls must protect it rather than undermine it. A comparison with the 2002-04 SIR shows that the earlier exercise placed the burden of verification largely on the State, through door-to-door enumeration, close supervision and the treatment of shifted electors as transfers. The current SIR, by contrast, places that burden on the elector. Restoring these safeguards and expediting the re-enrolment of eligible voters is essential to ensure that no eligible citizen is left off the rolls.