Flawed by design, exclusionary in impact

1. At a Glance

• The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a large revision of India's electoral rolls. It was launched by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and described officially as an exercise to "purify" the rolls [1].
• Main criticism: the article says SIR reverses the ECI's 75-year focus on "inclusion". It points to methodological flaws and ad hoc rule changes that led to the deletion of a large number of genuine voters [1].
• Scale: 13.37 crore names were struck off at the draft stage across 30 States/UTs over three phases [1].
• UPSC relevance: GS-II covers the ECI, universal adult franchise, the independence of constitutional bodies, judicial review of ECI action and the balance between roll accuracy and the right to vote. It is also an ethics question about administrative fairness.

2. Why in the News

• An Op-Ed in The Hindu (9 October 2026, page 8, International edition) by Srinivasan Ramani and Pon Vasanth B.A. argues that the ECI, "emboldened by a deferential Supreme Court judgment", has "already disenfranchised lakhs of genuine electors" through SIR and "risks excluding many more" [1].
• Phase 3 draft deletions stand at 6.15 crore. Final rolls for Phase 3 are yet to be published, so the issue is still live [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• The inclusion tradition:
• For more than 75 years, the ECI's main concern has been "inclusion" [1].
• The first general election (1951-52) had to enrol an electorate of about 17 crore from scratch, many of them illiterate [1].
• Successive Commissioners treated universal adult franchise as "a promise to be fulfilled rather than just a principle to be stated on paper" [1].

• In India, voter turnout among the poor is higher than among the rich, unlike in many Western democracies [1].

• Milestones of the SIR (chronological):

• Phase 1: Bihar. About 65 lakh names deleted at draft stage; deletion rate 8.3% [1].
• Phase 2: 12 States/UTs. 6.57 crore names deleted at draft stage [1].
• Phase 3. 6.15 crore names deleted at draft stage; final rolls pending as of October 2026 [1].

• Supreme Court judgment. The article calls it "deferential" to the ECI [1]. The case name and date were not available from the sources retrieved.

• Trend: the deletion rate doubled as SIR progressed, starting from 8.3% in Bihar [1].

4. Core Static Facts

*Standard static facts. They are not sourced from a retrieved document in this note, so check them against the Bare Act or Constitution text.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Constitutional / Legal

• Universal adult franchise was meant as a substantive promise, not just a paper principle [1]. Mass deletions put that promise under strain.
• The article argues that a "deferential" Supreme Court judgment emboldened the ECI [1]. This raises the question of how strictly courts should review the ECI's administrative discretion.
• Analytical point: who bears the burden of proving eligibility, the citizen or the state, decides whether a revision includes or excludes people.

Social / Equity

• India stands out because the poor vote at higher rates than the rich [1]. Exclusionary revisions put this advantage at risk.
• Deletions of "genuine voters" [1] are likely to fall hardest on the illiterate, migrants, the poor and people without documents. This parallels the 1951-52 challenge of enrolling an illiterate electorate [1].

Administrative

• The article cites methodological flaws and ad hoc rule changes during the exercise [1].
• The rate of deletion rose with each phase (8.3% in Bihar, then roughly doubling) [1]. This suggests the process scaled up without fixing its errors.
• With 13.37 crore draft deletions [1], any system of claims and objections faces a very large reconciliation workload.

Ethical / Governance

• There is a trade-off between roll integrity, i.e. removing duplicate, dead or shifted entries, and inclusion. The stated aim was purification [1], but the result was exclusion [1].
• The independence and credibility of the ECI depend on whether citizens see it as a guarantor of the vote rather than a gatekeeper.

Historical

• The ECI's institutional culture has been inclusion-first since 1951-52 [1]. The article treats SIR as a break from that trajectory [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• Bihar SIR (Phase 1): about 65 lakh draft deletions at an 8.3% rate [1].
• Phase 2: extended to 12 States/UTs, with 6.57 crore draft deletions [1].
• Supreme Court judgment on SIR, which the article describes as "deferential" to the ECI [1].
• Phase 3: 6.15 crore draft deletions; final rolls pending as of 9 October 2026 [1].
• 9 October 2026: The Hindu Op-Ed "Flawed by design, exclusionary in impact" [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SIR of electoral rolls was launched under CEC Gyanesh Kumar [1].
• SIR's stated objective is to "purify" electoral rolls [1].
• SIR covered 30 States/UTs in three phases [1].
• Total draft-stage deletions were 13.37 crore [1].
• Bihar was the first SIR state, with about 65 lakh draft deletions [1].
• The draft deletion rate in Bihar was 8.3% [1].
• Phase 2 covered 12 States/UTs and deleted 6.57 crore names at draft stage [1].
• Phase 3 draft deletions were 6.15 crore [1].
• The deletion rate doubled as SIR moved from Bihar to later phases [1].
• The first general election (1951-52) enrolled about 17 crore electors from scratch [1].
• In India, turnout among the poor is higher than among the rich, the reverse of many Western democracies [1].
• Conduct of elections, including electoral rolls, is under Art. 324; adult suffrage is under Art. 326 (static, unsourced; verify).

8. What the Bihar Draft Number Hides, and What It Does Not

• The draft figure is not the final figure
• Bihar's draft roll dropped about 65 lakh names [1].
• After claims and corrections, the number of deletions came down to about 47 lakh [2].

• So roughly 18 lakh people were wrongly left off the draft. They got back on only because they, or someone acting for them, filed a claim.

• Even the final number is very large

• Bihar's electorate fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore once SIR ended on 30 September 2025 [2].

• That is a net fall of about 47 lakh voters in a single State.

• Why this matters for the 13.37 crore figure

• The 13.37 crore is also a draft-stage number [1]. Expect the final count to be lower, as happened in Bihar.
• Each correction depends on the voter noticing the deletion and filing a claim in time. The poor, migrants and the less literate are the least able to do this.
• So the gap between draft and final shows that the process makes errors. It also shows that fixing those errors falls on the citizen.

9. The ECI's Case for SIR, and Why the Court Accepted It

• The strongest argument for SIR
• More than four decades had passed since the last intensive revision of the rolls [2].
• Years of additions and deletions, fast urbanisation and migration had made duplicate and wrong entries likely [2].
• The Supreme Court upheld SIR. It said the ECI had not acted in excess of its statutory powers (powers given to it by law) [2].

• The Court also linked clean rolls to fair elections [2].

• What is right about this argument

• A roll full of dead, shifted or duplicate names is a real risk. Someone can misuse those entries to cast fake votes.

• Nobody disputes the ECI's power to revise rolls under Art. 324 and the RP Act, 1950.

• What it does not answer

• The Court ruled on whether the ECI had the power to run SIR. It did not rule on whether the method kept genuine voters on the rolls.
• That is why the article calls the judgment "deferential" (leaving the decision to the ECI) [1].
• A clean roll and a complete roll are both needed. Bihar's 18-lakh correction shows the process traded completeness for cleanliness [1][2].

10. Who Must Prove They Belong: The Document Problem

• The burden moved onto the voter
• In a routine revision, the officer checks the existing roll. Under SIR, each elector had to show documents from a set list to stay on the roll.

• Anyone who could not produce a listed document risked deletion.

• Aadhaar was left out at first

• The ECI told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship [4].
• But Aadhaar is the document most people actually have. Leaving it out made the list hardest to satisfy for exactly the people the article worries about.
• The Court asked the ECI to consider Aadhaar. It still refused to stay the draft rolls [6].

• Later the Court directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar, along with the listed documents, at the claims and objections stage [3].

• Why this is a design flaw and not a small slip

• Aadhaar came in only after the draft deletions had already been made [3][6].
• So the remedy reached voters after they had been removed. They still had to apply to get back on.
• This is one clear example of the "ad hoc rule changes" the article describes [1]: the rules changed partway through, which made the process harder to follow.

11. When a Voter-List Check Becomes a Citizenship Check

• The ECI started asking a question it cannot decide
• The ECI linked roll revision to citizenship by arguing that Aadhaar does not prove citizenship [4].

• But deciding who is or is not a citizen is a job for authorities under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The ECI's job is to prepare the roll.

• The Court drew this line itself

• For people removed on citizenship grounds, the Court told the ECI to refer each case to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act within four weeks [2].

• That authority must give notice and a hearing, and decide before the next Assembly or local body election [2].

• Why this matters

• Without this step, a booth-level enumeration (house-to-house listing of voters) could in practice remove someone's citizenship-based right to vote with no hearing.
• The NRC in Assam (see Related Topics) showed the same risk: when documents decide belonging, people without papers are left out, even when they are genuine citizens.

12. What Must Happen Before the Phase 3 Rolls Are Final

• The ECI should publish every deletion with its reason, in every State
• In Bihar, the ECI published the list of dropped voters only after the case reached the Supreme Court [5].

• Phase 3 final rolls are still pending [1]. The same list, with reasons such as dead, shifted or duplicate, should be public before the rolls are final, not after a court order.

• The ECI should accept Aadhaar from the first day, not just at the claims stage

• The Supreme Court has already directed that Aadhaar be accepted for claims [3].

• Accepting it at enumeration as well would stop wrong deletions from happening in the first place, instead of fixing them later.

• Citizenship doubts should go to the Citizenship Act authority

• Follow the Court's own route: refer the case, give notice, hold a hearing, then decide [2].

• A missing document alone should not be grounds for deletion.

• The ECI should publish draft-versus-final figures for each phase

• Bihar's fall from 65 lakh to about 47 lakh shows how large the correction can be [1][2].
• Publishing this gap for each phase would show citizens and courts how accurate each phase's draft deletions were.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bihar draft deletions of about 65 lakh fell to about 47 lakh after claims; the electorate went from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [1][2]
• Data: 13.37 crore draft-stage deletions across 30 States/UTs in three phases [1]
• Law/Case: Supreme Court upheld SIR as within the ECI's statutory powers, and directed that citizenship-based deletions be referred to the Citizenship Act, 1955 authority with notice and hearing [2]
• Law/Case: Supreme Court directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar at the claims and objections stage in Bihar [3]
• Law/Case: Art. 324 (ECI superintendence), Art. 326 (adult suffrage), RP Act, 1950 (preparation of rolls)
• Scheme: SVEEP, the ECI's own voter-outreach programme, is the inclusion model that SIR moves away from

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; appointment to various constitutional posts, and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies (ECI); separation of powers and judicial review.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance; fairness and accountability in administrative action.
• GS Essay: Democracy, inclusion and the state.
• Plausible question stems: 1. "Accuracy of electoral rolls and inclusiveness of the franchise need not be in conflict." Critically examine this with reference to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. (15 marks, 250 words) 2. Universal adult franchise in India has been "a promise to be fulfilled rather than just a principle." Discuss how recent electoral roll revision exercises have affected this promise. (10 marks, 150 words) 3. Examine the scope of judicial review over the administrative functions of the Election Commission of India in the context of large-scale deletions from electoral rolls. (15 marks, 250 words)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 and ECI independence: the source of the ECI's plenary power over rolls and elections.
• Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: the appointment process bears on perceptions of ECI neutrality.
• Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951: the statutory basis for roll preparation, revision, claims and objections.
• Delimitation (post-2026 freeze): another electoral-representation issue in current headlines.
• NRC (Assam) and citizenship verification: comparable risks of exclusion through documentation.
• Electoral roll–Aadhaar linkage (Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021): a technology route to cleaning rolls, and its exclusion risks.
• Migrant voters and remote voting (RVM proposal): structural reasons genuine voters may appear "missing".
• Election Commission's SVEEP programme: the inclusion-oriented voter outreach that SIR is contrasted with.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): This is the exercise the article critiques; know how it differs from routine roll revision and why it is contested.
• Electoral roll (Polity): SIR rewrites the rolls; you need to know how rolls are prepared, revised and what inclusion means.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): The ECI runs SIR; its Article 324 powers and independence are central to the criticism.
• Universal adult franchise (Polity): The article argues mass deletions strain the promise of universal adult franchise made in 1950.
• Right to vote (Polity): Courts treat voting as a statutory right, which shapes how deletion challenges are argued and decided.
• Judicial review (Polity): The article blames a deferential Supreme Court; this explains how far courts can check ECI actions.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• SIR vs Summary Revision: the annual summary revision updates existing rolls. An intensive revision re-prepares rolls through fresh enumeration. Do not treat the two as the same.
• Draft-stage vs final deletions: 13.37 crore is a draft-stage figure [1]. Final-roll figures may differ after claims and objections, and Phase 3 final rolls were still unpublished [1].
• Phase composition: Phase 1 was Bihar alone; Phase 2 covered 12 States/UTs [1]. Avoid adding the phases up wrongly: 0.65 + 6.57 + 6.15 = 13.37 crore.
• Article confusion: Art. 324 (ECI powers) vs Art. 326 (adult suffrage) vs Art. 325 (no exclusion from the roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex). Verify all three in the Bare text.
• First election electorate: about 17 crore in 1951-52 [1]. Do not confuse this with the population figure or with the 1957 election.