SIR strengthening democracy

The decision of the Election Commission of India to publish electoral rolls after the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) deserves appreciation rather than suspicion. In a democracy of India’s scale, the sanctity of the voter list is the very foundation of free and fair elections. Without an accurate roll, the principle of “one person, one vote” becomes vulnerable to distortion. The SIR exercise is not a political maneuver; it is an administrative necessity.

India has nearly a billion eligible voters. Migration, urbanization, deaths, and new registrations constantly change the demographic landscape. In such a dynamic society, periodic intensive revision is essential. The Election Commission is constitutionally mandated to ensure that electoral rolls are updated, free of duplication, and reflective of ground realities. The SIR is designed precisely for that purpose door-to-door verification, booth-level scrutiny, correction of entries, and removal of ineligible or duplicate names.

Critics, particularly from the Indian National Congress, have alleged that the exercise is politically motivated and aimed at disenfranchising certain sections. Such claims, however, lack credible evidence. Allegations cannot substitute for facts. If there are specific cases of wrongful deletion, the law provides remedies: claims, objections, and appeals. The Commission’s process is transparent and rule-bound. Casting blanket aspersions without substantiation undermines public faith in institutions.

History offers perspective. In Uttar Pradesh, previous intensive revisions led to the deletion of lakhs of duplicate and shifted voters. With massive internal migration and a large rural-urban movement, duplication was inevitable. After revision, electoral rolls became more streamlined, reducing instances of impersonation and bogus voting. Political parties across the spectrum benefited from cleaner lists, as genuine voters could exercise their franchise without confusion or manipulation.

Similarly, in Gujarat, periodic roll revisions have strengthened electoral credibility. Urban centers like Ahmedabad and Surat witness frequent population mobility. Intensive verification ensured that voters who had shifted were either re-registered in their new constituencies or removed from previous ones. This enhanced transparency and minimized disputes on polling day. The exercise was administrative, not partisan.

It is important to note that electoral roll revision is not unique to one political phase or government. It has been a routine practice under different regimes. The institutional continuity of the Election Commission has ensured that procedures remain consistent irrespective of which party is in power at the Centre or in the states. Therefore, attempts to portray the SIR as selectively targeted ignore decades of precedent.

The Congress party’s allegations appear rooted more in political anxiety than procedural reality. Democracies demand accountability, but they also require responsibility. To suggest that a constitutionally empowered body is acting with mala fide intent without concrete proof risks weakening institutional credibility. If political parties have evidence of irregularities, they must present it formally rather than relying on press conferences and rhetoric.

Moreover, the SIR exercise protects marginalized communities rather than harming them. By verifying entries, the Commission ensures that no eligible voter is left out. Special camps, public notices, and online portals make the process accessible. In fact, inaccuracies in rolls disproportionately hurt the poor, migrants, and first-time voters. Cleaning the rolls is therefore an act of democratic inclusion.

One must also remember that electoral malpractice historically stemmed from inflated rolls duplicate entries, deceased voters remaining listed, or individuals registered in multiple constituencies. Intensive revision addresses these structural flaws. A credible voter list strengthens the legitimacy of election outcomes and reduces post-poll litigation.

Democracy thrives not on suspicion but on systems. The Election Commission’s SIR is part of that system. Rather than questioning its intent, stakeholders should participate constructively mobilizing citizens to verify their entries, file corrections where needed, and ensure accuracy. Constructive engagement enhances democracy; indiscriminate allegations diminish it.

In conclusion, the publication of electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision is a reaffirmation of procedural rigor. Experiences from Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat demonstrate that systematic revision enhances transparency and fairness. Allegations by the Congress, absent substantiated proof, risk politicizing a constitutional exercise meant to safeguard every citizen’s vote. In a nation as vast and diverse as India, maintaining a clean and credible electoral roll is not optional it is indispensable.