The politicisation of voter verification exercises poses a threat to democratic institutions. Examine in the context of recent developments in India and the United States.

Q. The politicisation of voter verification exercises poses a threat to democratic institutions. Examine in the context of recent developments in India and the United States. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Verification of electoral rolls is a legitimate integrity function; it becomes a democratic hazard when its timing, design or rhetoric serves partisan calculation. Recent exercises in India and the United States show both the necessity of such drives and the risk of their capture.

Partisan framing: the U.S. SAVE Act - The SAVE Act (H.R. 22, 119th Congress) bars States from registering voters for federal elections without documentary proof of citizenship, and creates a private right of action against officials who do [1]. - Passed by the House but stalled in the Senate, it has been defended publicly in terms of lasting advantage for one party — integrity vocabulary carrying an electoral objective. - The paper burden falls hardest on those least likely to hold a passport or REAL ID-compliant document: the poor, elderly and mobile.

Contested neutrality: India's SIR - The ECI's Special Intensive Revision, under Article 324 and the RP Act, 1950, covered nearly 51 crore electors across 9 States and 3 UTs in Phase-II from October 2025 [2]. - Deletions follow Booth Level Officer house-to-house verification, limited to death, permanent shifting, duplication and untraceability [3]; yet opposition parties read large-scale deletions as targeting migrants, the urban poor and minorities.

Why politicisation endangers institutions - It erodes the umpire's perceived neutrality — the ECI's authority rests on trust, not coercive power. - Exclusion errors are irreversible on polling day, straining Article 326's guarantee of universal adult suffrage. - Routine administration migrates into courtrooms and legislatures, polarising what should be technical.

Where checks have held - The Supreme Court (ADR v. ECI, May 2026) found SIR within the ECI's statutory mandate under the RP Act, 1950, and consonant with its Article 324 duty [4]. - Draft-roll publication, claims and objections, and sample audits of deletions are the durable answer to suspicion [3].

Purification and inclusion are not rivals: rolls cleaned by transparent, auditable process strengthen the mandate they produce. Statutory revision timelines insulated from election cycles, published deletion audits and easy restoration would ensure the burden of proof never rests on the poorest elector. Institutions endure when their procedures, not their outcomes, command consent.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. H.R.22 — SAVE Act, 119th Congress, Congress.gov — documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration; private right of action; bill status 2. PIB — "Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Phase-II begins in 9 States and 3 UTs" — Phase-II coverage, ~51 crore electors, October 2025 launch 3. PIB — "ECI's Special Intensive Revision Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters" — BLO verification, permitted deletion grounds, draft roll publication, claims and objections, sample audits 4. Supreme Court of India — Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) 640/2025, judgment dated 27 May 2026 — SIR held within RP Act, 1950 mandate and Article 324 obligation