SIR may be legal but is not fair: former Election Commissioner

1. At a Glance

• Ashok Lavasa, former Election Commissioner, criticised the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as legally valid but procedurally unfair — a "might is right" exercise by statutory institutions [1].
• SIR has resulted in the deletion of over 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across India, raising concerns about disenfranchisement [1][3].
• The Supreme Court, in May 2026, upheld SIR's legality as consistent with the Representation of the People Act, 1950/1951 [2].
• High-value UPSC topic linking Election Commission powers, electoral roll law, judicial review, and voter disenfranchisement debates.

2. Why in the News

• On Thursday, 3 September 2026, Ashok Lavasa delivered the Professor Jagdeep Singh Chhokar Memorial Lecture, organised by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), criticising SIR as legal but unfair [1].
• He questioned the deletion of 13 crore names from electoral rolls and warned of rising voter disenchantment, noting 33% of eligible voters already abstain from voting [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• SIR (Special Intensive Revision) is a house-to-house electoral roll verification exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) [3].
• The current pan-India SIR round began with Bihar in June 2025, ahead of the 2025 Bihar Assembly election [2][3].
• ECI subsequently announced a pan-India Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls (October 2025) [3].
• The exercise proceeded in phases; Phase 3 covers 16 States and 3 Union Territories [3].
• Legal challenge: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (WP Civil 640/2025), a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging Bihar SIR [2].
• In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld SIR's legitimacy, holding it consistent with the Representation of the People Act, citing ECI's constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections [2].

4. Core Static Facts

Aspect	Detail
Conducting body	Election Commission of India (ECI)
Enabling law	Representation of the People Act, 1950 (electoral roll preparation)
First state covered	Bihar (June 2025)
Pan-India rollout	Announced October 2025
Names deleted (nationwide, draft rolls)	Over 13 crore across 30 States/UTs [3]
Bihar deletions	~65.62 lakh names (vs. 2024 Lok Sabha rolls) [3]
Highest deletion rate	Delhi — 32.8% of draft roll cut [3]
Method	Fresh enumeration forms, house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), document verification, claims & objections period [3]
Key SC case	ADR v. ECI, WP (Civil) 640/2025 [2]
SC verdict	May 2026 — upheld SIR's legality [2]
Critic in this article	Ashok Lavasa, former Election Commissioner [1]
Lecture platform	Prof. Jagdeep Singh Chhokar Memorial Lecture, organised by ADR [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• SC validated SIR as procedurally legal under the Representation of the People Act, invoking ECI's Article 324 mandate for free and fair elections [2].
• Lavasa's critique draws a distinction between legality and fairness — "justice is not just about enforcing the letter of the law; it is also about protecting its spirit" [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Lavasa flags a broader trend of statutory/constitutional bodies exhibiting a "might is right" approach, treating any legally-mandated action as inherently correct [1].
• Raises accountability questions: mass deletion of names without adequate natural-justice safeguards for affected voters.

Social

• Deletion of 13 crore names disproportionately risks excluding poor, migrant, and marginalised voters lacking easy access to required documents [1][3].
• Lavasa links this to deepening voter apathy — pointing to the existing 33% non-voting population [1].

Administrative

• Implementation relies on BLA/BLO-level door-to-door verification, creating wide state-wise variance (Delhi 32.8% vs. Bihar's lower proportional cut) [3].
• Claims-and-objections mechanism exists post-draft-publication but its adequacy is contested.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• June 2025: SIR launched in Bihar ahead of Assembly polls [2][3].
• October 2025: ECI announces pan-India SIR of voter rolls [3].
• 2025–26: Supreme Court hears ADR v. ECI PIL; interim directions issued on acceptable identity documents [2].
• May 2026: Supreme Court upholds SIR's legality [2].
• September 2026 (Phase 3 ongoing): SIR draft rolls show over 13 crore deletions across 30 States/UTs [3].
• 3 September 2026: Ashok Lavasa publicly calls SIR "legal but not fair" at ADR-organised memorial lecture [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• SIR stands for Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, conducted by the ECI.
• The current SIR round began in Bihar, June 2025.
• Supreme Court upheld SIR's legality in May 2026 in the case ADR v. Election Commission of India.
• Over 13 crore names have been deleted from draft electoral rolls nationwide (as of September 2026).
• Delhi recorded the highest deletion rate among States/UTs — 32.8%.
• Ground-level verification under SIR is conducted by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
• Bihar's SIR deleted approximately 65.62 lakh names compared to the 2024 Lok Sabha electoral rolls.
• Ashok Lavasa is a former Election Commissioner of India (and former Union Finance Secretary).
• Lavasa made his remarks at the Professor Jagdeep Singh Chhokar Memorial Lecture.
• The lecture was organised by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
• Approximately 33% of eligible Indian voters do not vote, per Lavasa's remarks.
• SIR involves fresh enumeration forms and a subsequent claims and objections period before finalisation of rolls.
• Electoral roll preparation is governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II (Polity & Governance): Election Commission's powers and functions; Article 324; electoral reforms; issues of transparency and accountability in constitutional bodies.
• GS-IV (Ethics): Distinction between legality and fairness/justice; institutional ethics and "might is right" governance behaviour.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Legality does not automatically confer fairness." Discuss this statement in the context of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. Examine the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission of India under Article 324 in ensuring free and fair elections, with reference to recent electoral roll revision exercises. (GS-II, 15 marks) 3. "Justice is not merely the enforcement of the letter of the law, but the protection of its spirit." Critically analyse this statement using a contemporary governance example. (GS-IV, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 & Election Commission of India — constitutional basis for ECI's powers being invoked to justify SIR.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950 & 1951 — statutory framework governing electoral rolls and elections.
• Bihar SIR case (ADR v. ECI, 2025) — the specific litigation validating SIR.
• Right to Vote — statutory vs. fundamental right debate (PUCL and related SC jurisprudence) — relevant given mass deletions.
• Aadhaar-voter ID linkage debates — parallel document-verification controversies.
• Voter turnout trends in India — context for Lavasa's 33% non-voting statistic.
• Independence and accountability of constitutional bodies — broader governance theme raised by "might is right" critique.
• Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) — civil society body active in electoral transparency litigation (also behind electoral bonds case).

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse SIR (Special Intensive Revision) with SSR (Special Summary Revision) — SSR is the routine annual roll revision; SIR is a more intensive, house-to-house exercise [3].
• The Bihar SIR predates the pan-India SIR — aspirants often conflate the two as a single simultaneous rollout; Bihar (June 2025) preceded the pan-India announcement (October 2025) [2][3].
• Deletion of names does not automatically mean disenfranchisement of eligible voters — deletions include deceased, duplicate, and shifted voters, but Lavasa's critique specifically concerns due-process fairness, not legality.
• ECI's mandate flows from Article 324, not a single "Election Commission Act" — there is no standalone comprehensive ECI Act; conduct of elections rests on the RP Act, 1950/1951 plus Article 324.
• Ashok Lavasa should not be confused with the sitting/current CEC — he is a former Election Commissioner making this critique in a personal/civil-society capacity, not an official ECI statement.