Author: Racherla Tejaswi, University College of Law, Kakatiya University
To the Point
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct door-to-door verification of electoral rolls, ensuring inclusion of eligible voters and exclusion of ineligible ones ahead of elections. This process, announced nationwide on October 27, 2025, addresses inaccuracies through fresh enumeration but faces challenges on timelines and due process.
Abstract
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) represents a robust mechanism by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to purify electoral rolls via intensive house-to-house checks, grounded in constitutional and statutory provisions. This article dissects its legal architecture, procedural mandates, judicial interpretations, and prevalent critiques, underscoring SIR’s role in upholding electoral integrity while navigating disenfranchisement risks. It equips stakeholders with insights into SIR’s implementation across states like Bihar.
Use of Legal Jargon
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) operates within a matrix of constitutional imperatives and statutory delineations, invoking superintendence, direction, and control vested in the Election Commission of India by Article 324, which confers plenary authority over electoral processes sans legislative fetters unless explicitly circumscribed. Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA), explicitly countenances special revision at the ECI’s discretion, for reasons to be recorded, transcending routine annual summaries under Section 21(2), thereby enabling de novo (from the beginning) enumeration. Article 326 enshrines universal adult suffrage, mandating inclusion of citizens attaining majority by the qualifying date, subject to disqualifications under Section 16 RPA for non-citizenship, unsoundness of mind, or corrupt practices.
The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, operationalize this via Form 4 for new claims and Form 7 for deletions, imposing onus probandi(the obligation to prove an assertion or allegation that one makes; burden of proof) on claimants through self-attestation sans mandatory documents initially, though ECI notifications stipulate Aadhaar, EPIC, or ration cards post-judicial nudge. Ultra vires challenges posit SIR’s intensive modality—eschewing extant rolls for fresh verification—as exceeding Section 21, allegedly shifting evidentiary burden to voters, contravening natural justice audi alteram partem principles. Judicial review under Article 329(b) is circumscribed during polls, yet post facto scrutiny persists if basic structure—free fair elections—is impugned. Procedural fairness demands publication of draft rolls, claims adjudication by Revising Authorities, and appeals to District Magistrates, culminating in final rolls’ gazette notification.
Critics invoke Article 14’s intelligible differentia, decrying arbitrary qualifying dates (e.g., July 1, 2025, in Bihar) and compressed timelines risking mass disenfranchisement, particularly migrants and marginalized. ECI counters via plenary powers doctrine from Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) 1 SCC 405, affirming Article 324’s residuary sweep. Thus, SIR embodies administrative exigency balanced against fundamental rights, with mens rea absent in bona fide exercises.
The Proof
Empirical validation of SIR’s efficacy manifests in Bihar’s 2025 iteration, targeting 8 crore voters through exhaustive door-to-door surveys, yielding purported deletions of duplicates and inclusions of 18-19-year-olds. ECI data post-draft publication on August 1, 2025, evidenced transparency via public portals and political party dissemination, mitigating fraud allegations. Nationwide rollout from October 2025 across 12 states/UTs underscores scalability, with qualifying date January 1, 2025, aligning with National Voters’ Day distributions.
Statutory proof resides in Section 21(3) RPA’s non-obstante clause, preserving extant rolls’ validity pending revision, averting electoral vacuums. Constitutional proof via Article 324’s breadth, untrammeled by Articles 327-329 save express parliamentary override, fortifies ECI’s autonomy. Procedural proof includes booth-level agents’ verification, claims/objections windows (typically 7-10 days), and pre-revision rationalization of polling stations. In Assam, petitions highlight SIR’s discriminatory application vis-à-vis summary revisions elsewhere, yet ECI justifies via localized inaccuracies. Metrics from prior intensive revisions (e.g., 2018 Delhi) evince 2-5% roll purification, bolstering credibility. Thus, SIR’s proof amalgamates legislative text, executive practice, and outcome data, rebutting arbitrariness claims.
Case Laws
1. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
– This case seminalized Article 324’s unchartered expanse, upholding ECI’s re-poll directives sans statutory void, analogously endorsing SIR’s discretionary revisions. In Bihar SIR challenges by Association for Democratic Reforms (W.P.(C) No. __/2025), the Supreme Court (Justices Dhulia & Bagchi) prima facie affirmed ECI powers traceable to RPA provisions, refusing interim halts but directing Aadhaar/EPIC/ration card acceptance.
2. Yogendra Yadav v. ECI (2025)
– Yogendra Yadav v. ECI (2025) interrogated SIR’s timing pre-Bihar polls as suspect, alleging Articles 14/19/21 violations via disenfranchisement sans due process; Court issued notices, emphasizing further consideration sans stay, underscoring Article 329(b)’s bar on premature interference. Pan-India SIR petitions (November 2025, Justice Surya Kant) debated RP Act’s SIR silence, petitioners arguing Article 324 subordination to Section 21; ECI invoked inherent powers. Madras High Court (November 2025) clarified Tamil Nadu SIR as fresh listing, not mere summary.
3. Assam Petition (2025)
– Assam petition (November 30, 2025) assailed special (non-intensive) revision as arbitrary under Article 14; pending, it spotlights uniform policy imperatives. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1 reinforced voter list purity as free election sine qua non, tacitly supporting SIR. Collectively, judiciary tempers ECI latitude with procedural rectitude, rejecting blanket invalidation.
Conclusion
SIR fortifies democratic bedrock by purging electoral impurities, its legal scaffolding—Article 324, Section 21(3) RPA—resilient against onslaughts, tempered by judicial vigil on fairness. Future iterations demand refined timelines, migrant facilitation, and document flexibility to obviate disenfranchisement, ensuring Article 326’s promise. ECI’s evolving praxis, post-Bihar scrutiny, heralds mature electoral stewardship.
FAQS
1. What authorizes ECI to conduct SIR?
ECI derives authority from Article 324 Constitution and Section 21(3) RPA, 1950, for special revisions with recorded reasons.
2. How does SIR differ from Summary Revision?
SIR entails de novo door-to-door verification ignoring prior rolls; Summary Revision updates existing lists.
3. Can SIR be challenged in court?
Yes, under Article 32 for basic structure breaches, though Article 329(b) limits election-period interference.
4. What documents prove eligibility in SIR?
Self-attestation initially; Aadhaar, EPIC, ration cards post-SC suggestions; qualifying date citizenship/majority key.
5. Does SIR risk voter deletions?
Drafts allow claims/objections; final rolls post-adjudication minimize errors, but tight timelines pose risks.
