Reference Article: Editorial | The Hindu – Burden of proof: On SIR 2.0 and the voter
UPSC Relevance:
– GS II – Election Integrity, Federalism, Constitutional Governance
The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 States/UTs has triggered serious constitutional and procedural concerns. Even as the Supreme Court examines the Bihar pilot, the same model is being rolled out nationwide.
Core Issues
- Burden shifted to citizens:
- Voters must fill forms and match details with 2002–2005 electoral rolls, reversing the long-standing presumption that a habitual resident is a valid voter.
- High risk of disenfranchisement:
- Bihar’s SIR saw a sharp decline in the gender ratio, with married women, migrants and the urban poor most vulnerable.
- Weak implementation:
- BLO home-visits are largely absent; many voters cannot obtain forms, and documentation rules remain unclear.
- Errors persist because BLOs work under pressure and tight timelines.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
- Courts earlier held (e.g., Dr. Manmohan Singh, 1999) that residency must be interpreted liberally to protect the franchise.
- SIR inverts this, compelling every elector to prove legitimacy—even those who have voted for years.
- The Supreme Court has so far focused only on procedure, not on whether the methodology violates Article 326 and the principle of universal adult franchise.
Structural Problems
- The SIR prioritises “purifying rolls” over ensuring every eligible adult remains enrolled.
- A better approach would have been:
- Door-to-door verification
- Technology-driven deduplication
- Gradual correction without penalising genuine voters
Conclusion
The SIR risks systematic exclusion and weakens electoral trust. Judicial intervention must now address the constitutionality of shifting the burden onto voters and reaffirm that the ECI, not citizens, bears primary responsibility for maintaining accurate and inclusive electoral rolls.