Comparing SIR 2002-04 and 2025-26

1. At a Glance

• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a special, door-to-door revision of the electoral roll by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Its legal basis is Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [1].
• The 2025-26 SIR is a nationwide exercise run in phases. It started with Bihar (Phase I) [1].
• It is controversial. Critics say the current process has excluded lakhs of eligible voters, while earlier SIRs (such as 2002-04) used elaborate processes to prepare fresh rolls without dropping eligible electors. This is the author's argument [1].
• UPSC relevance: the topic links electoral integrity, the right to vote, ECI's autonomy, Supreme Court review and federal concerns (GS-II).

2. Why in the News

• Renewed protests against the SIR process (October 2026) [1].
• Former Election Commissioners and former Supreme Court judges have questioned the exercise in its current form. Other former judges and bureaucrats have publicly supported it [1].
• Phase III (from May 2026) is ongoing. BLOs were verifying voter details in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, in July 2026 [1].
• The Hindu ran an explainer on 13 October 2026 comparing the 2002-04 and 2025-26 SIRs [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Statutory origin: Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 lets ECI order a special revision of the roll for "any" constituency or part of a constituency, "in such manner as it may think fit" [1].
• Precedent: SIR has been conducted on eight earlier occasions [1]. The last cycle before the current one was 2002-04, as the article's title implies [1].
• Milestones of the current SIR:
• June 2025: ECI decides to hold a countrywide SIR [1].
• Phase I: Bihar [1].
• Phase II (October 2025 to February 2026): 9 States and 3 UTs [1].
• Phase III (from May 2026): 16 States and 3 UTs [1].

• May 2026: Supreme Court upholds ECI's power to run an SIR for "many" or "all" constituencies in a State [1].

• Related routine processes [Unverified]: the annual Summary Revision and continuous updation of rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Legal provision	Section 21(3), RP Act 1950: special revision for any constituency or part of one [1]
Authority	Election Commission of India [1]
Field functionary	Booth Level Officers (BLOs) verify voter details [1]
Number of earlier SIRs	Eight [1]
Current SIR announced	June 2025 [1]
Phase I	Bihar [1]
Phase II	October 2025 to February 2026; 9 States + 3 UTs [1]
Phase III	Started May 2026; 16 States + 3 UTs [1]
Total coverage (derived from S1)	1 + 9 + 16 = 26 States and 3 + 3 = 6 UTs across three phases [S1, arithmetic]
SC ruling	May 2026: an SIR for "many/all" constituencies in a State is within ECI's constitutional mandate [1]
Constitutional anchors [Unverified]	Art. 324 (superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls by ECI); Art. 326 (adult suffrage; qualifications: citizen of India, 18+, ordinarily resident)
Related provisions [Unverified]	RP Act 1950: s.16 (disqualifications for registration), s.19 (ordinarily resident condition), s.21(2) (summary and intensive revision before elections)

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Section 21(3) uses the words "any constituency" and "in such manner as it may think fit". This gives ECI wide procedural discretion [1].
• The May 2026 SC ruling settled the scope question: ECI can run an SIR for many or all constituencies in a State [1]. The debate has now moved to process fairness.
• [Unverified] Art. 326 makes the right to be registered conditional on citizenship and age. If the process puts the burden of proving eligibility on the voter, it engages Art. 14 and Art. 326 concerns.

Governance / Ethical

• The author contrasts earlier SIRs, which prepared fresh rolls with safeguards so that no eligible elector was removed, with the current process, which they call "flawed" and blame for excluding lakhs of eligible voters. This is an opinion piece's claim [1].
• Senior former officials and judges are divided on the exercise. That points to institutional contestation, not a purely partisan dispute [1].

Administrative

• The exercise is huge: three phases covering roughly 26 States and 6 UTs within about a year, and it depends heavily on BLO field verification [1].
• Running revisions close to State election cycles risks tight timelines for claims, objections and appeals. [Analytical inference]

Social

• If eligible voters are excluded, the people most likely to be hit are those with weak documentation, such as migrants, the poor and women whose residence changed after marriage. [Analytical inference; the article itself says only that "lakhs of eligible voters" were excluded, S1]

Historical

• With eight earlier SIRs behind it, the 2002-04 round is the natural benchmark for judging the methods of the 2025-26 round [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• June 2025: ECI decides on a nationwide SIR, starting with Bihar [1].
• October 2025 to February 2026: Phase II covers 9 States and 3 UTs [1].
• May 2026: Phase III begins, covering 16 States and 3 UTs [1].
• May 2026: Supreme Court upholds ECI's power to run an SIR across many or all constituencies of a State [1].
• July 2026: BLO verification under way in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh [1].
• October 2026: renewed protests, with former ECs and judges divided [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• SIR is conducted under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (not the RP Act, 1951) [1].
• Section 21(3) allows special revision for "any constituency or part of a constituency" [1].
• ECI may conduct the special revision "in such manner as it may think fit" [1].
• SIR had been conducted on eight occasions before the current exercise [1].
• ECI decided on the nationwide SIR in June 2025 [1].
• Phase I of the current SIR covered Bihar [1].
• Phase II ran from October 2025 to February 2026 and covered 9 States and 3 UTs [1].
• Phase III began in May 2026 and covers 16 States and 3 UTs [1].
• In May 2026, the SC held that an SIR for "many" or "all" constituencies in a State is within ECI's mandate [1].
• Field verification is done by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) [1].
• [Unverified] ECI's power over the preparation of electoral rolls comes from Article 324. Adult suffrage is in Article 326.

8. Why the 2003 Roll Became the Dividing Line

• The old SIR is not just a benchmark. It is the base list for the new one
• In 2025-26, the electoral roll (official list of voters) with the qualifying date 1 January 2003 was put online and given to BLOs [9].
• If your name is on that 2003 roll, a copy of that entry is enough. You submit it with your Enumeration Form (the door-to-door form each voter fills in during SIR) [9].

• In Phase II, BLOs had to help each voter find their name in the last SIR roll of 2002-04 [10].

• This splits voters into two groups with very different burdens

• Group 1: people already on the 2003 roll. They show one old entry.
• Group 2: everyone added after 2003. That covers about 22 years of new voters, people who moved, and women who changed address after marriage. They must prove eligibility with one of 11 listed documents [6].

• Aadhaar and the voter ID card (EPIC) were left out of those 11 documents. ECI told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship [6].

• Why this matters for the exam

• Article 326 makes citizenship a condition for being on the roll.
• But a voter already on the roll is now asked to prove it again. In practice, the burden of proof moves from the State to the citizen.
• That is the core of the 'process fairness' debate mentioned in the note.

9. What the Bihar Numbers Show, and What They Hide

• The first cut was very large
• About 65 lakh people were missing from the Bihar draft roll published on 1 August 2025. All of them had been on the January 2025 roll [2].

• ECI gave three reasons: death (22.34 lakh), 'permanently shifted/absent' (36.28 lakh), and enrolled at more than one place (7.01 lakh) [4].

• The biggest reason is also the weakest

• 'Permanently shifted/absent' means the BLO could not find the person or collect the form.
• It does not prove the person is ineligible. A seasonal migrant worker who is away during the visit fits this label.

• This one category is more than half of all deletions [4].

• The reasons were not shown at first

• The petitioner ADR told the Supreme Court that ECI had the reasons but removed that column before publishing the list [3].

• Without reasons, a deleted voter cannot know what to challenge.

• The final number is smaller, but still big

• After claims and corrections, Bihar's electors fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore. That is a net drop of about 47 lakh [8].
• This is a net figure. It mixes real clean-up (dead and duplicate names) with possible wrong exclusions. Official data do not separate the two.

10. The Strongest Case for the SIR, and Where It Falls Short

• The case for it is real
• Rolls do carry dead and duplicate names. In Bihar, deaths and multiple entries alone came to about 29 lakh (22.34 + 7.01 lakh) [4].
• Article 326 allows only citizens on the roll. So checking eligibility is part of ECI's job, not an extra step.

• In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the SIR and linked roll revision to fair elections [8].

• What that case does not answer

• Removing dead and duplicate names does not need a citizenship check. Death registers and computer matching of duplicates can do it.
• The big dispute is about the 'shifted/absent' group and post-2003 voters. For them, the problem is a missing paper, not proof that they are ineligible.

• During the hearings, the Supreme Court itself called the Bihar row 'largely a trust deficit issue' [7].

• What the courts had to fix along the way

• On 14 August 2025, the SC ordered ECI to publish deleted names with reasons, searchable by EPIC number [4].
• On 22 August 2025, it allowed excluded voters to file claims with Aadhaar [5].

• Both safeguards came from the court, not from ECI's original design. This supports the critics' point that the first design leaned towards exclusion.

• A fair conclusion

• The SIR's purpose is valid and its legality is now settled [8].
• What is contested is who carries the burden of proof, and how easy it is to get back on the roll.

11. Why People Who Move Still Fall Through the Cracks

• A missed form at the old address can block a new registration
• In October 2026, the Bombay High Court at Goa asked ECI why Form 8 applications (used to shift or correct an entry) were being rejected automatically [11].
• The rejections happened when the voter had not submitted an Enumeration Form at their previous address [11].

• ECI's reply: such voters should apply afresh on Form 6 (the form for new voters) [11].

• Why this hurts the same group again

• The people most likely to miss the form at their old address are the ones who moved: migrants, students and newly married women.
• They are first marked 'shifted/absent' at the old place. Then they are told to start again as new voters at the new place.

• Each extra step is another chance to drop out before the election.

• Online filling helps, but only partly

• In Phase II, ECI let voters fill the Enumeration Form online, especially urban voters and temporary migrants [10].
• This helps people who use the internet. It does little for poor migrants with no documents.

12. What Should Change Before the Next Phase

• ECI should publish deletion reasons by default, not only under court order
• The SC's 14 August 2025 order made reasons public and searchable by EPIC [4].

• Making this a standard rule for every phase would remove the 'hidden reasons' complaint raised by ADR [3].

• ECI should accept Aadhaar at the first stage, not only at the claims stage

• The SC already allowed Aadhaar for claims [5].

• Accepting it at enumeration as proof of identity and residence (not citizenship) would keep many eligible voters from being dropped in the first place.

• Citizenship doubts should go to the right authority, not stay with the BLO

• The May 2026 judgment told ECI to send citizenship-based deletions to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act [8].

• ECI should apply this in every State. A BLO checks residence. A BLO is not a citizenship tribunal.

• ECI should fix the Form 8 rule for people who have moved

• The Goa High Court case shows automatic rejection of Form 8 applications [11].

• ECI should carry the voter's record forward to the new address instead of forcing a fresh Form 6.

• ECI should report net and gross figures separately

• Bihar showed only a net fall of about 47 lakh [8].
• Publishing separate counts for deletions, restorations after claims, and new additions would show whether the exercise cleaned the roll or excluded voters.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: About 65 lakh names left out of Bihar's 1 August 2025 draft roll: 22.34 lakh deaths, 36.28 lakh 'permanently shifted/absent', 7.01 lakh multiple enrolment [2][4]
• Data: Bihar electors fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore after the SIR, a net drop of about 47 lakh [8]
• Law/Case: SC interim orders of 14 August 2025 (publish deleted names with reasons) and 22 August 2025 (allow Aadhaar for claims) [4][5]
• Law/Case: SC ruling of May 2026 upheld the SIR and sent citizenship-based deletions to the authority under the Citizenship Act [8]
• Law/Case: Bombay High Court at Goa, October 2026: questioned automatic rejection of Form 8 during SIR [11]
• Comparison: 2025-26 uses the 2002-04 SIR roll (qualifying date 1 January 2003) as its base. Voters on it show one entry, while later entrants must produce one of 11 documents [9][6]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies (ECI); Separation of powers and dispute redressal (judicial review of ECI action).
• GS-IV (secondary): Probity in governance, and the tension between administrative discretion and fairness.
• Question stems: 1. Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 grants the ECI wide discretion in conducting special revisions of electoral rolls. Critically examine whether this discretion adequately safeguards the right to vote. (15 marks) 2. Compare the methodology of earlier Special Intensive Revisions with the 2025-26 exercise. What safeguards are needed to balance roll purification with inclusion? (15 marks) 3. Electoral roll integrity is the foundation of free and fair elections. Discuss the role of the judiciary in reviewing the ECI's administrative choices in this regard. (10 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951: the 1950 Act governs rolls and seats; the 1951 Act governs the conduct of elections.
• Article 324 and ECI independence: this is where the "constitutional mandate" upheld in May 2026 comes from.
• Article 326 (adult suffrage): the eligibility criteria the SIR checks against.
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: the procedural rules for claims, objections and appeals.
• Electoral roll–Aadhaar linkage (Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021) [Unverified]: a parallel roll-cleansing tool.
• Delimitation: a separate exercise that redraws constituencies, often confused with roll revision (and also in the news) [S1 topics list].
• Citizenship verification debates (NRC): questions about who must prove eligibility overlap with SIR documentation.
• Booth Level Officer system: the field machinery that implements SIR.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): This is the exercise the whole note compares across 2002-04 and 2025-26.
• Electoral roll (Polity): SIR revises the electoral roll, and the dispute is about eligible voters being dropped from it.
• Representation of the People Act 1950 (Polity): Section 21(3) of this Act is the legal basis for SIR, and it is easily confused with the 1951 Act.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): ECI orders the SIR, and its constitutional powers over rolls were upheld by the Supreme Court.
• Right to vote (Polity): Exclusion of eligible voters raises the question of whether voting is a statutory or fundamental right.
• Booth Level Officer (Polity): BLOs do the door-to-door verification on which the whole SIR depends.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RP Act 1950 vs 1951: SIR falls under the 1950 Act (rolls), not the 1951 Act (conduct of elections) [1].
• Special Intensive Revision vs Summary Revision: SIR is a special revision under s.21(3). Summary and intensive revisions before elections fall under s.21(2) [Unverified].
• Phase counts: Phase II = 9 States + 3 UTs; Phase III = 16 States + 3 UTs. Don't mix them up [1].
• SC ruling scope: the May 2026 judgment upheld ECI's power to cover many or all constituencies in a State. It did not settle every procedural challenge, and protests continue [1].
• Opinion vs fact: the claim that "lakhs of eligible voters" were excluded is the author's argument in an explainer, not an official ECI figure [1].