Quraishi Questions Legal Basis of SIR, Seeks Reversal of 'Unnecessary' Voter Roll Revision

Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has questioned the necessity and legal footing of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of India's electoral rolls, arguing that voter lists had been maintained effectively for decades and that decisions taken under the exercise should be reversed.

Mr Quraishi, who served as Chief Election Commissioner from 2010 to 2012, has raised concerns about the necessity, legality and implementation of the exercise. In his public comments, he has said the SIR departs from the established practice of continuous updating of electoral rolls, under which names are added, corrected or removed throughout the year through prescribed procedures rather than in a single, compressed campaign.

What is the SIR?

A Special Intensive Revision is a door-to-door verification of electors, conducted by Booth Level Officers. It involves house-to-house enumeration, the collection of documents to establish identity, age and residence, and the publication of draft rolls. Electors who do not appear in the draft rolls are given an opportunity to file claims and objections before the final roll is published.

The Election Commission of India has carried out the exercise in Bihar and has said it intends to extend it to other States in phases. The Commission has described the purpose as removing entries of electors who have died, permanently shifted, or are recorded more than once, so that the rolls reflect only genuine and eligible voters.

The Commission's position

The Election Commission has said that no eligible elector is removed without due process. It has pointed to the publication of draft rolls, the provision to file claims and objections, and the role of designated officers in hearing them. Senior Commission officials have also said that the electoral roll is a public document that must be accurate, and that periodic intensive revision is one of the tools available to keep it so.

Concerns raised

Critics, including several Opposition parties, civil society groups and former officials such as Mr Quraishi, have argued that the requirement to produce documentary proof places a disproportionate burden on poorer, rural, elderly, migrant and homeless citizens, many of whom may lack papers that match the records. They have also questioned the timing and scale of the exercise, and warned that eligible voters could be left out. The Commission has rejected the charge of exclusion, saying its instructions require that no name be deleted without giving the person a hearing.

The legal question

The Commission conducts revisions of electoral rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which provide for special revision. The dispute is less about whether such a power exists and more about how it is exercised: the standard of proof demanded, the window given to electors to respond, and whether the process meets the constitutional requirement under Article 326 that rolls be based on adult suffrage.

Mr Quraishi has argued that the exercise is not required at this scale, given that the rolls have been revised regularly and that the Commission's own data has shown high levels of registration and turnout in recent elections. He has called for the decisions to be reconsidered and reversed.

Officials have maintained that every objection is examined before any deletion. Courts are currently hearing petitions on aspects of the exercise, and their rulings are expected to shape how the process is carried out in other States.

For voters, the practical point remains the same: keeping documents in order, checking the draft roll, and filing a claim or objection within the notified window if a name is missing. The Commission's instructions and the State Chief Electoral Officer's office are the relevant sources for deadlines and forms.