The speculations are rife on the endgame Election Commission (EC) intends through ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The stance of EC on shocking reports of internal rift do not mean much as its focus remains on maximum exclusions from existing voters list. SIR continues on legal architect of three dubious fundamentals. One, the shift of burden on existing voter to prove credentials in 'legacy year' 2002. Second, the choice of questionable documents for existing voters to 'map'. Third, this purge as first step to determination of citizenship by Government.
More than 13 crore alleged ghost voters, including eminent citizens, face exclusion. In addition are pre-SIR deletions (e.g.11lakhs in Delhi) and computer-generated logical discrepancies (e.g. 33 lakhs in Delhi) in draft list, the legal basis and redressal mechanism for which is not in public domain. The noble thought not in domain of EC to have sort of National Register of Citizenship before census has severely damaged the credibility of our fabled electoral process. As EC remains adamant, it is imperative that the Supreme Court reconsiders its judgement in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)1 to halt its unintended fallout.
As per ADR, the demographic changes due to migration, urbanisation and non-reporting of deaths led to “repeated, multiple and defective entries” in the electoral rolls after last SIR of 2003 which was based on voters as in 2002. The court addressed legitimate concerns regarding the initial design of EC through series of interim directions such as acceptance of Aadhaar, publication of draft lists and assistance of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to substantially reduce the exclusions. It held that the measures adopted were “not disproportionate” for the objective of “comprehensive re-examination” to ensure “accuracy, completeness and integrity” of the electoral rolls. After 7.42 crore electors out of the 7.89 crore before SIR in Bihar, it held that the data does not disclose a level of disenfranchisement “so widespread or systemic” to find constitutional infirmity in the design of the exercise.
Meanwhile in Bengal SIR, the EC introduced a new category of “logical discrepancy” to exclude lakhs post-SIR. After a series of interim directions by the court, 25 lakhs were restored and 37 lakhs appeals are pending of which 22 lakhs are stated to be against exclusions. In constituencies where the margin of victory was much smaller than the exclusions, the solace is that those excluded can vote next time even though not in bye elections.
In the 2003 SIR, the statutory provisions and objectives were same as in the present SIR to correct existing electoral roll due to “frequent migration leading to electors getting registered in more than one place” and “non removal of dead voters”. The S. 21 of Representation of the People Act, 1950 postulates ordinary revision before election or a special revision anytime. The S. 22 provides for correction of entries in electoral roll when “the person concerned is dead” or “ceased to be ordinarily resident of the constituency” by deletion as per mechanism in Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. A special revision, may be directed by the EC “for reasons to be recorded” at any time and “in such manner as it may think fit”. In either case, the burden remains on the EC to have material to justify exclusion of a voter already on the roll.
The guidelines for 2003 special revision directed house-to-house verification using the existing electoral rolls and the EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) as a basis. It also stipulated that the final electoral list would be published only after all claims and objections have been resolved following the larger bench ruling in Lal Babu Hussein2 which held that if the voter “names were already on the rolls, and since they were sought to be removed by undertaking a special revision, whether intensive or otherwise, the procedure for removal had to be followed”, consistent with presumption as to correctness of existing electoral rolls.
This is distinguished in ADR by tracing addition of “intensive” in “special revision” to Article 324 of the Constitution of India to approve shift of burden on existing voters to prove credentials afresh, deletion of those not “mapped” by name or lineage in 2002 and mandate to “unmapped” voters to establish credentials through the documents prescribed. Normally, absent material that one is non-citizen, physical verification with Aadhar should be enough but it is not acceptable on own despite rules nor ration card nor EPIC nor voting in past. This creates a Herculean task for the underprivileged citizens in highly bloated number of so-called ineligible voters. It is plainly illegal and arbitrary to ask digitally verifiable voters who voted after 2003 in numerous parliamentary/assembly/local body elections to establish 'mapping' back to 2002. No past revision was ever anchored to any past legacy year. At the end, the exercise by local level EROs authorised in law is stymied by unwarranted centralised control.
All this is contrary to settled law in AC Jose that the Article 324 gives plenary powers to EC where the law is silent but its “garb” cannot supplant the law in “teeth of an express rule-based arrangement” and “substitute a different regime of its own”. The constitutional choice in ADR to defer to EC has created the spectacle of citizens running up and down to secure voting rights, dependent social welfare benefits and very citizenship. It must be reconsidered before the disenfranchisement of officially counted adult population on this scale turns ADR into another ADM, Jabalpur.
- 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 549
1995 AIR 1189
Author is a Senior Advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.