SIR 2002–04 vs 2025–26: Electoral roll revision and voter safeguards

The brief in 5 cards

1. Context1 / 5
   • A comparison of the 2002–04 and 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises has renewed debate over India's electoral roll verification.
   • SIR is conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to update electoral rolls by checking eligibility and entries through intensive verification.
   • Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324, empowers the ECI to order a special revision.
   • The ECI emphasises accurate rolls and removal of ineligible entries. Critics question whether documentation demands and draft-stage omissions may also affect eligible voters.
   • The essential balance is electoral accuracy with procedural fairness and voter inclusion.
2. Key highlights2 / 5

   The comparison highlights how verification requirements changed. The newer procedures varied across States and phases; the examples below chiefly concern Bihar's 2025 launch.

   Aspect	2002–04 SIR	2025–26 SIR (Bihar launch unless stated)
   Enumeration	Door-to-door verification against earlier rolls.	Household visits using prescribed enumeration forms.
   Supervision	Reported minimum random checks of 25% by supervisors.	Reported 10% random checks in the initial Bihar guidance.
   Existing electors	Earlier roll entries had evidentiary value.	The 2003 Bihar roll was used as a baseline; others could need documents.
   Absent electors	Repeat visits and checks of locked homes were prescribed.	Failure to submit the form could prevent entry in the draft roll.
   Shifted electors	Transfers were checked during enumeration.	Form 8 for shifting residence; Form 6 for new inclusion where applicable.
   Bulk objections	Earlier guidance reportedly discouraged bulk objections.	From October 2026, a ceiling applies to Form 7 objections by an elector.

   • Older supervision: Published comparisons also describe checks by Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (12%), Electoral Registration Officers (5%) and District Election Officers (2%). The original 2002–04 instructions require confirmation.
   • Important distinction: Omission from a draft roll is not automatically a final decision. Claims, objections, verification and statutory appeals are available.
3. Note3 / 5

   Scale of draft-roll omissions

   Across the three phases, reports describe over 13 crore draft-stage omissions. A published approximate breakdown is given below; it is not a verified count of eligible people permanently excluded.

   Reported category	Approximate draft-stage omissions
   Deaths	2.7 crore
   Duplicate entries	1.01 crore
   Absent, shifted and others	9.5 crore

   • Arithmetic caution: These rounded categories add to 13.21 crore, while the reported overall figure is about 13.3 crore. The difference is unresolved.
   • Bihar in 2025: About 7.89 crore electors before SIR; 65 lakh absent from the first draft; 21.53 lakh additions and 3.66 lakh further deletions; about 7.42 crore on the final roll.
   • Meaning: Deaths and duplicate entries are distinct from the broad absent/shifted category. A person's continued eligibility requires individual verification.
4. Note4 / 5

   Constitutional and judicial dimensions

   • Article 324: Vests the ECI with superintendence, direction and control over elections and electoral rolls.
   • Article 326: Provides for adult suffrage subject to citizenship, age and other legal conditions.
   • Section 21(3), RP Act 1950: Enables special electoral roll revision. Section 24 provides appeals against registration decisions.
   • 27 May 2026 judgment: In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court upheld the challenged Bihar SIR framework and its legal basis, subject to procedural safeguards.
   • Safeguards: Draft-stage exclusion is provisional. Affected people can seek verification, notice, hearing, a reasoned decision and appeal. The ECI may examine citizenship for electoral eligibility but cannot conclusively decide citizenship status.
   • Aadhaar: Can serve as identity evidence; it does not establish citizenship.
   • 12 October 2026 development: The Supreme Court said it had neither approved nor disapproved a subsequently modified Form 6 and would examine that separate issue.
5. Note5 / 5

   Concerns and suggested safeguards

   Concerns

   • Possible wrongful exclusion: Migrants, elderly people and others may have difficulty completing verification.
   • Documents and data: Old records, spelling differences and automated mismatches may require careful human checking.
   • Public confidence: Disputed omissions and obstacles to appeal can erode trust if decisions lack clarity.

   Suggested measures, not announced policy

   • Explain omissions and provide accessible correction routes.
   • Prioritise household checks for absent, shifted and vulnerable electors.
   • Ensure timely notice, hearing, reasoned decisions and appeals.
   • Use digital discrepancies as alerts for human verification, not automatic proof of ineligibility.

   Final takeaway: Electoral roll accuracy and protecting eligible citizens against wrongful exclusion are complementary duties.

Swipe or use ← → to move between cards.