The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across 12 States and Union Territories has triggered debate on how electoral rolls are verified and who bears the burden of proving eligibility. With nearly 51 crore voters under review, the exercise marks a significant shift from earlier norms that presumed citizenship and residence — raising concerns over disenfranchisement, especially for marginalised groups.
How “Ordinary Residence” Was Historically Understood
Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows any adult who is “ordinarily resident” in a constituency to be enrolled. Over the years, both the ECI and the courts adopted a liberal interpretation. In 1999, the Gauhati High Court expanded the definition to include anyone who habitually lived in a place with the intention of staying, adding that a reasonable person should accept them as a resident. This flexible standard enabled broad voter inclusion and rested on constitutional morality: the assumption that adults residing in India were citizens unless proven otherwise.
Why the New SIR Represents a Major Shift
Unlike earlier revisions, the current SIR requires every elector — even long-time voters — to match personal details with electoral rolls from 2002–2005. This shift reverses the presumption of inclusion and places the burden of compliance on voters rather than the state. Given the non-digital nature of the older rolls, even minor mismatches could lead to notices or deletions, disproportionately affecting migrants, women, and homeless persons who often lack stable documentation.
A Parallel with Technocratic Exclusions in Welfare Schemes
The SIR’s structure mirrors earlier digital interventions in welfare systems, particularly the Union government’s approach to MGNREGA. The administrative logic is familiar: shift responsibility to beneficiaries, set rigid timelines, mandate digital compliance, and press officials to deliver 100% coverage. Such systems often criminalise human error and reward deletions as markers of efficiency.
In MGNREGA, the introduction of Aadhaar-Based Payment System (ABPS) in 2022 required linking job cards with Aadhaar. With unclear procedures for correcting mismatches and widespread migration, frontline staff either could not or did not help workers resolve issues. To meet targets, deletions became a shortcut. A study of 2.98 lakh deletions between 2022 and 2024 suggests that nearly two-thirds were marked as “unwilling to work” — a reason not permitted under the law.
Digital Tools and Their Unintended Consequences
The NMMS attendance app introduced in 2021 further complicated matters. Connectivity problems denied attendance to genuine workers while also enabling new forms of corruption, as admitted by the Ministry of Rural Development. Instead of addressing these issues, an additional layer — mandatory e-KYC — was imposed. As deadlines tightened, nearly 27 lakh deletions occurred in a single month, reflecting how administrative pressure can convert exclusions into a governance tool.
A similar dynamic may unfold under the SIR, where field officials, under pressure to meet targets, face little institutional space to account for migration, name variation, or documentation gaps.
The Question of Constitutional Morality and the Citizen–State Balance
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s notion of constitutional morality places fraternity and inclusion at the core of democratic functioning. Institutions must ensure that exclusion remains a rare exception. However, the SIR’s design — by placing onerous documentary burdens on individuals — risks reversing this principle. Vulnerable individuals lack the procedural capacity to navigate grievance systems, and harmful consequences often emerge only after rights have been lost.
The pattern across welfare systems shows how difficult it is to undo large-scale exclusions once they occur. Targets overshadow rights, officials face unbearable pressure, and procedural gaps widen structural inequities.
Alternative Approaches to Ensuring Roll Accuracy
Experts suggest that social audits — already used in MGNREGA — could offer a participatory, transparent alternative to the SIR. Social audits shift the focus from document matching to community verification, preserving inclusion while allowing scrutiny. They also reduce the pressure for unrealistic coverage targets that often precipitate mass deletions.
What to note for Prelims?
- Section 19, Representation of the People Act, 1950: enrolment based on “ordinary residence”.
- 1999 Gauhati High Court interpretation of “ordinary residence” (habitual residence + intention to stay).
- Special Intensive Revision (SIR): ongoing roll revision exercise covering ~51 crore voters.
- Key welfare digital tools referenced: Aadhaar-Based Payment System (ABPS), NMMS app, e-KYC requirements.
- National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS): digital attendance for MGNREGA.
What to note for Mains?
- Shift from presumption of citizenship to document-dependent verification in electoral roll revision.
- Comparative analysis of SIR with technocratic welfare reforms and their exclusionary effects.
- Administrative pressures and target-driven governance as drivers of disenfranchisement.
- Ambedkar’s idea of constitutional morality — privileging fraternity and inclusion.
- Potential of social audits as an alternative, citizen-centric mechanism for roll verification.
- Implications of shifting the burden of proof from the state to the citizen in democratic processes.
