letters to the editor

1. At a Glance

• The source is the Letters to the Editor column in The Hindu's Chennai print edition of 1 October 2026 (Page 6). It carries readers' views, not editorial or reported fact. [1]
• The letter that matters for the exam is "SIR debate, electoral trust". It argues that the legal position on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is "substantially settled", for two reasons: the top court upheld the SIR, and the Election Commission (EC) said its decisions on it were unanimous. [1]
• A second letter, "Celebrating victory", is by a former Deputy General Manager (Sports Department) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It questions why Indian medallists pose biting their medals. It notes that modern Olympic gold medals are not solid gold and that no sporting rule requires a medal bite. [1]
• Why an aspirant should care: the SIR tests the EC's power over the electoral roll (Article 324), universal adult franchise (Article 326) and public trust in institutions. These are core GS-II topics, and useful for Essay and GS-IV.

2. Why in the News

• The letter says the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the SIR conducted in Bihar. It also says the EC clarified its position and stated its decisions were taken unanimously. [1]
• A reportable Supreme Court judgment, cited as 2026 INSC 564 (124 pages), is hosted on the ECI portal. [7]
• The letter also says the Opposition and some TV channels keep questioning the exercise and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). It links this to the earlier pattern of blaming EVMs after an election loss. [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• 24 June 2025: the EC ordered an SIR of Bihar's electoral rolls. It was the first such exercise in Bihar since 2003. [3][4]
• Legal basis: the EC used its powers under Article 324 and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The qualifying date was 1 July 2025. [2]
• Late June 2025: the EC stressed that only Indian citizens can vote, and the Opposition criticised the exercise. [5]
• July 2025: the Supreme Court took up multiple petitions against the SIR, with a hearing listed for 10 July 2025. [6]
• 1 August 2025: the draft electoral roll was published. [8]
• Late September 2025: the final roll was published with about 7.42 crore (74.2 million) electors. This was a net increase of 17.87 lakh (1.787 million) over the draft roll. [2][8]
• 2026: the Supreme Court judgment (2026 INSC 564) was delivered, and the letter says it upheld the SIR. [7][1]

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Exercise	Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Bihar [2]
Authority	Election Commission of India [2]
Constitutional basis	Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of elections, including electoral rolls [2]
Statutory basis	Section 21, RP Act 1950: preparation and revision of electoral rolls [2]
Eligibility rule	Article 326: a citizen of India, at least 18 years old on the qualifying date, not otherwise disqualified by law [2]
Qualifying date	1 July 2025 [2]
Previous intensive revision in Bihar	2003 [3][4]
EC's motto for the SIR	"No eligible voter to be left out, and no ineligible person to be included" [2]
Final roll size	About 7.42 crore electors [2][8]
Draft roll date	1 August 2025 [8]
Net addition from draft to final	17.87 lakh [8]
Articles invoked by petitioners	14, 21, 325, 326 [3]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The SIR sits where two things meet: the EC's plenary power under Article 324 and the citizenship-based franchise under Article 326. [2]
• Petitioners argued that the 24 June order violated Article 14 (equality), Article 21 (life and liberty), Article 325 (no exclusion on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex) and Article 326. [3]
• The letter says the judicial outcome has "substantially settled" the legal position. [1]

Governance / Institutional Trust

• The letter ties the dispute to electoral trust. It says losing parties first blamed EVMs and now blame the CEC. [1]
• The EC says its SIR decisions were unanimous, meaning the multi-member Commission acted collectively. [1]
• Counter-view for Mains balance: large-scale roll revisions just before an election raise concerns about exclusion, documentation burden and timing. [5][6]

Social

• Citizenship-linked verification can weigh most on migrants, the poor and people with few documents. This is why petitioners invoked Articles 14 and 21. [3]
• The 17.87 lakh net rise from the draft to the final roll shows how claims-and-objections can add names back. [8]

Political / Democratic

• The letter says Bihar voters have backed both the NDA and the Opposition in different elections. It uses this to reject claims that the process is inherently biased. [1]
• It also says voters weigh security and quality of leadership when they choose. [1]

Ethical / Cultural (second letter)

• The medal-biting pose is a modern sports-photography tradition. It is loosely linked to the old habit of biting gold to test whether it is real. [1]
• The letter asks whether India could develop its own dignified way of celebrating wins, which links to cultural self-expression and soft power. [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 30 September 2025: Bihar's final roll was published with 7.42 crore electors. [2][8]
• 2026: the Supreme Court judgment 2026 INSC 564 on the SIR was delivered. It is available on the ECI website. [7]
• 2026: the EC clarified that its SIR decisions were unanimous. [1]
• 1 October 2026: readers' letters in The Hindu argue that continued questioning of the SIR and the CEC is unjustified now that the court has ruled. [1]

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SIR in Bihar was ordered by the ECI on 24 June 2025. [3]
• Bihar's last intensive revision before the 2025 SIR was in 2003. [3][4]
• The SIR was ordered under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950. [2]
• The qualifying date for the Bihar SIR was 1 July 2025. [2]
• Article 326 is the basis of elections on universal adult suffrage: a citizen, 18 or older on the qualifying date, not otherwise disqualified. [2]
• Article 325 bars exclusion from the electoral roll on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. Petitioners invoked it against the SIR. [3]
• The Bihar draft roll was published on 1 August 2025. [8]
• The Bihar final roll has about 7.42 crore electors. [2]
• The net addition from the draft to the final roll was 17.87 lakh. [8]
• The EC's SIR motto: "No eligible voter to be left out, no ineligible person to be included." [2]
• The Supreme Court's SIR judgment is cited as 2026 INSC 564. [7]
• RP Act 1950 deals with electoral rolls and seat allocation. The RP Act 1951 deals with the conduct of elections, corrupt practices and disputes. [2]
• Modern Olympic gold medals are not solid gold. [1]

8. What the Court Actually Held: Upheld, With Conditions

• The letter says the matter is "substantially settled". That is only half the story [1]
• The Supreme Court did uphold the SIR. The judgment is Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, dated 27 May 2026. It was written by CJI Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi [7].

• But the court also attached conditions. An aspirant who writes only "SC upheld SIR" loses the marks that sit in those conditions.

• The court applied a proportionality test (checking whether a state action is a fair and not excessive way to reach a valid goal) [7]

• The court held that the SIR has a legal basis in Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 read with Article 324 [7].

• It found that the steps taken bear a "rational nexus" (a logical link) to the goal of an accurate roll. It also found they are "not manifestly excessive", meaning not clearly more than needed [7].

• The EC may ask about citizenship, but it cannot decide it [7]

• Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950 bars non-citizens from the roll. So the EC must satisfy itself that a person is a citizen [7].
• The court called this only a "limited enquiry" and a prima facie view (a first-look view, not a final one). It "does not amount to a determination of citizenship" [7].

• The final decision on citizenship belongs only to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 (the official the Central Government has named to decide citizenship) [7].

• A voter already on the roll starts with a presumption in their favour, but it can be challenged [7]

• A presumption of validity means the law first assumes the entry is correct. The court said this presumption is "rebuttable": it can be overturned with evidence [7].

• The court said the earlier Lal Babu Hussein ruling applies only to individual disputes ("adjudicatory proceedings"). It does not block a system-wide revision [7].

• What the court ordered for people deleted as non-citizens [7]

• The EC must send their cases to the Competent Authority within 4 weeks [7].
• That authority should decide, after notice and a hearing, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly or Local Body election, whichever comes first [7].
• If they are found to be citizens, their names go back on the roll [7].

• People wrongly deleted as absent, dead, shifted or duplicate can challenge the EC through judicial review (a court checking whether an official decision was lawful) [7].

• Why this matters for the letter's argument

• The legality of the exercise is settled. The fate of individual deleted voters is not, because referrals and hearings are still pending under the court's own directions [7].
• So some of the continued questioning the letter objects to is really a demand that these conditions be met [1].

9. What the 17.87 Lakh Net Rise Does Not Tell You

• The note gives the net figure. The gross flows behind it were much larger
• The draft roll of 1 August 2025 listed 7.24 crore voters. It left out more than 65 lakh names, and the EC said most of these people had died or migrated [9].

• The final roll has about 7.42 crore electors, which is 17.87 lakh more than the draft [2][8].

• "Net" hides two movements going in opposite directions

• The 17.87 lakh is additions minus deletions between the draft and the final roll [8].

• It mixes brand-new voters, deleted voters who were restored, and further deletions. So it cannot tell us how many of the 65 lakh got their names back.

• The roll is still smaller than before the SIR

• Before the SIR, the roll was about 7.89 crore (7.24 crore on the draft plus about 65 lakh removed) [9].
• The final roll of 7.42 crore is therefore about 47 lakh lower than the pre-SIR roll [2][9].

• That gap has two possible readings. The EC reads it as dead and migrated names finally removed. Critics read it as eligible voters who could not complete the paperwork. The headline number alone cannot settle which is right.

• How to use this in an answer

• Write "a net addition of 17.87 lakh after draft deletions of over 65 lakh". Do not write only "17.87 lakh added". The first version shows you understand the scale.

10. The Strongest Case Against the Letter, and How Far It Holds

• The opposing argument, at its strongest
• The safeguards that made the SIR fair did not come from the EC on its own. The Supreme Court had to order them while the exercise was running.
• In August 2025 the court asked the EC for details of about 65 lakh deleted voters [9].
• It then directed the EC to publish the names of excluded voters before 19 August, with the reason for each deletion, searchable online by EPIC number (the number on the voter ID card) [10].
• It allowed deleted voters to file claims using Aadhaar [11]. Aadhaar was later made the 12th accepted document by an order dated 8 September 2025 [7].

• So critics argue that the questioning is what produced the fairness. Calling it bad-faith "blame", as the letter does, misreads what happened [1].

• What the critics get right

• The court itself described the Bihar SIR row as "largely a trust deficit issue" [12].
• A trust deficit (people not believing an institution acts fairly) is not removed by a court verdict alone. Voters must be able to see why a name was removed. That is exactly what the court-ordered deletion list did [10].

• Aadhaar was not part of the EC's original document list. It was added only on the court's direction [7][11]. Poor and migrant voters are the least likely to hold the other documents.

• Where the letter is still right

• After full hearing, the court found the process was not arbitrary. It held that the notice and hearing safeguards under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules were "preserved in substance" [7].
• It also found the document list rested on "intelligible criteria" (a clear, logical basis for grouping) [7].

• So a claim that the SIR is illegal or inherently biased is no longer tenable [1][7].

• A fair conclusion

• The legal question is closed. The trust question is not.
• Scrutiny of the SIR is legitimate. Attacks on the CEC as a person are a separate matter, and the letter is right to separate the two [1].

11. Why a 'Unanimous' EC Decision Does Not Close the Trust Gap

• Unanimity shows the Commission agreed within itself. It does not show that outsiders can check the work [1]
• The letter treats the EC's statement that its decisions were unanimous as proof of fairness [1].

• But the trust problem the court named was about voters and parties outside the Commission [12].

• What actually built trust was transparency, and it came late

• The key trust-building step was a public, searchable list of deleted names with a reason for each. That step came through a court order, not an EC decision [10].

• The lesson for GS-II: an institution earns trust by being checkable (disclosing reasons, allowing appeals), not only by being united.

• The citizenship question is now split between two bodies

• The EC forms only a first-look view. The Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act gives the final answer [7].
• Until those referrals are decided, a deleted person's status stays uncertain. The court wanted this uncertainty ended before the next election [7].

12. What the EC and the Centre Must Do Next

• EC: refer every citizenship-based deletion on time
• The court set a 4-week deadline for the EC to refer these cases to the Competent Authority [7].

• Reporting publicly on how many cases were referred, and when, is the simplest way to answer the Opposition's charge with facts.

• Central Government's Competent Authority: decide before the next election

• The court asked for a decision, after notice and a hearing, preferably before the next election, whichever of the three comes first [7].

• If this slips, a person may miss a vote only because an official did not decide in time. The court warned against rights being left "in a state of prolonged uncertainty" [7].

• EC: make the Bihar safeguards the starting rule for any future SIR

• Two protections came only through court orders during Bihar: publishing deleted names with reasons, searchable by EPIC [10], and accepting Aadhaar at the claims stage [11].

• If the EC builds both in from the first day of any future SIR, it removes the main grounds on which the Bihar exercise was challenged.

• Voters wrongly deleted: use judicial review

• People in Bihar deleted as absent, dead, shifted or duplicate by mistake can challenge the EC's decision in court [7].
• Free legal help from legal services authorities would matter most here, because the people most likely to be wrongly deleted are also the least able to go to court.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Draft roll (1 Aug 2025) had 7.24 crore voters, with more than 65 lakh names left out, mostly shown as dead or migrated [9]. Final roll is about 7.42 crore, a net rise of 17.87 lakh over the draft [2][8].
• Law/Case: ADR v. ECI, 2026 INSC 564 (27 May 2026; CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi). The SIR was upheld under Section 21(3) of the RP Act 1950 read with Article 324. The court held the EC may make only a limited citizenship enquiry, and must refer doubtful cases to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [7].
• Law/Case: Section 16, RP Act 1950 bars non-citizens from the roll. Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules covers notice and hearing before deletion. Lal Babu Hussein was held to apply only to individual disputes, not to a system-wide revision [7].
• Law/Case: SC interim orders of August 2025: excluded names to be published with reasons, searchable by EPIC [10], and Aadhaar accepted for claims [11]. Aadhaar became the 12th document by order of 8 Sept 2025 [7].
• Quote: The Supreme Court called the Bihar SIR row "largely a trust deficit issue" [12].

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; appointment to constitutional posts and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies (the ECI).
• GS-II: Separation of powers; the Supreme Court's role in electoral matters.
• GS-IV / Essay: Trust in institutions; how democratic losers accept results.
• Possible question stems: 1. Special Intensive Revisions of electoral rolls balance the integrity of the roll against inclusion of voters. Critically examine this with reference to the Bihar SIR, 2025. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the scope of the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 over preparing and revising electoral rolls. How far are these powers subject to judicial review? (10 marks) 3. Repeatedly questioning electoral institutions after defeat weakens democratic legitimacy. Comment. (Essay / GS-IV)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 324 and the ECI's structure: the SIR draws its authority from here.
• Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: links to the CEC-trust debate in the letter.
• RP Act 1950 vs RP Act 1951: Section 21 (roll revision) vs election disputes.
• EVM–VVPAT debate and related SC rulings: the letter's "earlier the EVM was blamed" point.
• Citizenship Act 1955, NRC and CAA: citizenship verification through the electoral roll.
• Delimitation: a parallel electoral-process topic currently in the headlines.
• Linking Aadhaar with Voter ID (Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021): roll clean-up tools.
• Model Code of Conduct: another area of EC authority that is often contested.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RP Act 1950 vs 1951: roll revision (Section 21) is in the 1950 Act, not the 1951 Act. [2]
• Article 325 vs 326: Article 325 means a single general roll with no exclusion on religion, race, caste or sex. Article 326 means adult suffrage at age 18. [2][3]
• Qualifying date vs order date: the order was dated 24 June 2025, but the qualifying date was 1 July 2025. [2][3]
• Last intensive revision in Bihar: it was 2003, not 2004 or 2019. [3]
• Treating letters as facts: a letter to the editor is reader opinion. Cite the court or ECI record for what was actually held.