The campaigning for the Bihar elections is in full swing. And with all the drama, politics, and histrionics surrounding elections in India, we have new topics that the Opposition gets excited about every week. The current brouhaha centres around SIR—the Special Intensive Revision of the Electoral Rolls—the second phase of which is expected to be kicked off in a number of states by the Election Commission of India.
Under SIR, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal are expected to undergo scrutiny and revision. Out of these 12 states and Union Territories, four are expected to go to the polls next year, and a misleading narrative is likely to be spun against the BJP. But is there any merit in the Opposition’s allegations?
What is SIR?
As per the Election Commission of India, the SIR is an effort to “ensure that no eligible citizen is left out while no ineligible person is included in the Electoral Roll.” New electoral rolls are prepared as part of an extended re-look at existing electoral rolls, via house-to-house enumeration.
An extensive revision is expected to be a part of this exercise to identify genuine eligible voters and weed out those who are ineligible due to death, marriage, migration, or other reasons. This kind of exercise is normally carried out either prior to significant elections or during administrative procedures like constituency delimitation, which is also a matter of pendency.
Regular clean-up and revision of electoral rolls is necessary and required to maintain the trust and integrity of the election process. Consider it an audit—every industry today conducts regular audits to improve its processes, execution, and efficiency. Why then should electoral rolls not be constantly updated and refreshed?
In a country with a vast and floating population like India, thousands of names persist on rolls, even after death or migration, or simply due to duplication. This not only distorts representation, but it also skews the resources and could result in fraud. Duplication of names is especially quite common: people migrate to big cities, sign up to vote in their new homes, but still retain their voter IDs in their native places.
Often, the migration is overseas, where new citizenships are acquired, but names remain forever on the electoral rolls ‘back home’. In my own constituency, it was observed by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) that people would move and their names remained on the electoral rolls for years, leading to wastage of resources and distortion of polling percentages. After all, dead people can’t come back to vote.
Also read: Dusting off Delhi’s air — clean construction must replace blanket bans
Ctrl + Alt + Del
Deletion is not just a simple click on the keyboard—it is a long-drawn-out process. The Field Officer or BLO first visits a residence with a voting list to confirm residence status and voter details. A draft roll is then published, and the voters can check their missing or wrong entries. Any citizen can file a Form 7 objection (Application for Deletion / Objection) stating the reason (death, migration, duplication). The Election Registration Officer must send a notice to the concerned voter, giving them a chance to respond. It is only after inquiry, if the objection is valid and no satisfactory reply is received, the ERO orders deletion. The updated roll is displayed publicly and online (on the National Voters Service Portal).
The argument by the Opposition that the BJP will use this exercise to delete or remove genuine voters is neither logical nor sensible. Rather, it is an attempt to safeguard their own fake vote bank. It is indulging in hypocrisy and appeasement politics.
For a genuine voter, it is a simple process to log into the National Voters’ Service Portal and verify that the vote still exists. In fact, it is a citizen’s duty to ensure their right to vote under Article 326.
According to a survey by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 85.5 per cent of Indian households had access to a smartphone. Those who are concerned with their voting rights also have the means to verify and ensure that their vote exists. The Opposition’s argument of misuse of SIR falls flat on its face.
On the other hand, there has been a constant debate on the resettlement of Bangladeshi immigrants and Rohingyas by the Congress to manipulate electoral results. As far back as the late 1990s, Madan Lal Khurana had been vindicated on the Bangladeshi immigration issue, which became a huge poll plank.
Also read: 5 reasons Indira Gandhi is the most popular of India’s former prime ministers
Linking to Aadhar
The Aadhar, imagined as a national identity card, was pretty visionary. However, over the years, it has become less reliable as an authenticated document, and its value has become diluted as proof of citizenship. There are so many non-citizens, including NRIs and OCI holders, who are in possession of an Aadhar card.
The BJP, therefore, maintains the stand that linking Aadhar to SIR is acceptable only as a means of identity verification. It is not a shortcut to enrol voters, nor is it a proof of citizenship. Aadhaar’s main achievement is that it negates fake identities, because biometrics are linked to the system, and biometrics cannot lie.
A prime example of Aadhar being used to cut out duplicitous documentation and identity fraud came from an acquaintance. She failed her driving license test in New Delhi due to the introduction of sensor–based parking tests in the automated driving test centre. To circumvent the one–month waiting period before she could reapply, she decided to try her luck in her native Uttarakhand. Due to Aadhar authentication and biometric verification, the system did not allow her to apply in another state. This is the beauty of the Aadhar. It strips the veil from fake IDs and duplicate enrolments, thereby disallowing fake voters or duplicate voter registration.
No matter what rhetoric the Opposition engages in, the people of Bharat have trust in the process and faith not just in the system, but also in the intelligence of the voters.
This audit is mandated by the Constitution under the Representation of the People Act. So a duty is enshrined on the executive, which is enforceable. Smear campaigns only bring down the credibility of the Opposition. Vetting of electoral rolls furthers the legitimacy and credibility of electoral processes based on the principle of one citizen, one vote and no electoral fraud in the system.
Party leaders such as Rahul Gandhi must stop making irresponsible statements. “In Bihar, the Election Commission was caught red-handed stealing votes,” he wrote in an X post. This does not befit the leader of the Opposition in the world’s largest Democracy.
Meenakashi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)