In a robust democracy like India, the sanctity of the electoral roll is paramount. Recently, the Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a move that has garnered significant attention across the political spectrum. This extensive exercise began with the state of Bihar and has subsequently been expanded to include 12 other States and Union Territories, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and Lakshadweep.
The ECI justified Special Intensive Revision as essential due to the long gap since the last major demographic-based revision—Bihar’s last detailed SIR was in 2002-03, after which migration and urban expansion altered voter distribution considerably. SIR provides an opportunity to correct anomalies, delete ineligible names, add new eligible voters, and ensure inclusivity in the electoral process.
While some States questioned the timing, the ECI argues that a periodic special intensive revision is necessary to uphold the integrity, accuracy, and purity of electoral rolls, which form the foundation of free and fair elections in a democracy.
The primary objective stated by the authorities is to weed out inaccuracies that have crept in over decades—such as duplicate entries, the names of deceased voters, and, most contentiously, ineligible entries related to citizenship status, while retaining “Ordinarily Resident”– a permanent resident in a constituency. While the government and the ECI position this as a necessary administrative procedure to ensure “one person, one vote,” it has sparked debate regarding the timing, the authority of the ECI versus the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the potential impact on marginalised communities.
Table of Contents
What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is not a routine administrative update; it is a statutory procedure embedded in India’s election laws designed to overhaul the electoral rolls completely when they are deemed too flawed for simple correction.
Legislative and Constitutional Framework The power to conduct this revision flows from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission. However, the specific procedural mandate comes from the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950.
According to Section 21 of the RPA, 1950, the electoral roll for each constituency must be revised in the prescribed manner.
- Section 21(2)(a) allows for a revision before each general election or election to the Legislative Assembly.
- Section 21(2)(b) grants the ECI the power to order a revision in “any year” if it deems it necessary.
Last Detailed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Conducted
- For Bihar, the last major demographic-based SIR was in 2002–03.
- Between 2003 and 2024, though many State and national elections occurred, no large-scale SIR of similar depth was carried out across the 12 States now under revision.
- Routine revisions took place every year, but these were not special intensive revisions.
Thus, the 2025-26 SIR marks the first multi-state, full-scale intensive revision in nearly two decades.
The central premise of an SIR is that the existing roll is so riddled with errors that a mere summary update (adding new 18-year-olds and deleting reported deaths) is insufficient. Instead, enumerators are required to visit households, verify the existence and eligibility of every voter, and essentially rebuild the trust in the voter list.
The Term “Ordinarily Resident” in Special Intensive Revision
The electoral rolls are prepared by the EC as per the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act). Section 19 of the RP Act requires that a person is ‘ordinarily resident’ in a constituency for inclusion in its electoral roll.
The electoral rolls in India are compiled by the Election Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act). As per Section 19 of the RP Act, an individual must be ‘ordinarily resident’ in a constituency to be eligible for inclusion in its electoral roll.
In the Manmohan Singh case (1999), the Gauhati High Court provided a key interpretation of this term. It clarified that ‘ordinarily resident’ refers to someone who habitually resides in a particular place. This residence must be of a permanent nature, rather than a temporary or casual stay. The individual should have the intention to live there permanently, and their presence must be such that a reasonable person would accept them as a genuine resident of that area.
Section 20 further elaborates on the meaning of ‘ordinarily resident’. It clarifies that merely owning or possessing a house in a constituency does not automatically qualify a person as an ‘ordinarily resident’ there. However, if someone is temporarily away from their usual place of residence, they are still considered ‘ordinarily resident’ in that original location. The section also covers specific categories of individuals — such as:
(a) members of the Union’s armed forces,
(b) members of a State’s armed police force serving outside their State,
(c) individuals employed in a Government of India post abroad, and
(d) those holding a constitutional post declared by the President in consultation with the Election Commission.
These individuals, along with their spouses, are regarded as being ‘ordinarily resident’ in the constituency where they would have resided had they not been posted elsewhere.
Additionally, Section 20A, introduced in 2010, permits non-resident Indians (NRIs) — even those who have moved abroad for extended periods — to register and vote in the constituency corresponding to the address listed in their Indian passport.
Types of Revisions Under Section 21 of RPA, 1950
To understand the magnitude of the current exercise, one must distinguish between the two primary types of revisions mandated under the RPA, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Summary Revision Section 21(2)(a)
This is the standard, annual process.
- Procedure: Based on applications for additions, deletions, corrections. The existing electoral roll is published in draft form. Citizens are invited to file claims (to be added) or objections (to remove names). No extensive house-to-house verification.
- Scope: It assumes the base list is largely correct. It focuses on incremental changes—adding those who have turned 18 and removing those who have died or shifted residence based on voluntary reporting. Usually completed before every general election.
- Legal Basis: Conducted under Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, specifically aligned with Section 21(2)(a) of the RPA, 1950.
Intensive Revision (The current SIR) Section 21(2)(b)
This is the “special” category currently under discussion.
- Procedure: This involves house-to-house enumeration. Officials (Booth Level Officers) physically visit residences to collect data. It does not rely solely on voluntary applications but proactively verifies the status of electors.
- Scope: It is comprehensive and time-consuming. De-duplication of voter-list due to dead, nullification of citizenship, duplicate voter-card (EPIC cards), illegal immigrants, etc. It is usually “delinked” from the immediate pressure of elections because it functions akin to the preparation of a new roll. Often undertaken when large demographic changes occur.
- Legal Basis: This falls under Section 21(2)(b) of the RPA, 1950, which allows revision in “any year.” As noted in the reference material, Rule 25 implies that a revision done under this section is an “intensive revision.”
The Timing Controversy A critical point of contention regarding the current Special Intensive Revision is its timing. Intensive revisions are historically time-consuming exercises meant to be done when no immediate election is looming. However, the current Special intensive revision in Bihar was ordered just months before the Assembly elections.
Citizenship and the Constitution: The Legal Bedrock
Constitutional Provisions (Articles 5-11) India’s Constitution defines citizenship at the commencement of the Republic (January 26, 1950) through Articles 5 to 8 of Part II.
Article 5 – Citizenship at commencement of the Constitution.
Article 6 – Rights of persons migrating from Pakistan.
Article 7 – Rights of persons who migrated to Pakistan but returned.
Article 8 – Persons of Indian origin residing abroad.
Article 9 – Voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship results in loss of Indian citizenship.
Article 10 – Continuance of rights.
Article 11 – Parliament empowered to legislate on citizenship (Citizenship Act, 1955).
The Citizenship Act, 1955 This Act acts as the primary statute governing citizenship after 1950. It provides five ways to acquire citizenship:
- Birth: Born in India (subject to cutoff dates).
- Descent: Born outside India to Indian parents.
- Registration: For Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) or spouses of citizens.
- Naturalization: For foreigners residing in India for a specific period (usually 12 years).
- Incorporation of Territory.
- It also provides for renunciation, termination, and deprivation of citizenship.
Citizenship (Amendment) Acts
Various amendments (1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2019) refined documentation, citizenship by descent, and provisions for persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries (CAA 2019).
Foreigners Act, 1946 & Passport Act, 1967 The Foreigners Act vests the government with powers to deport illegal immigrants. Crucially, Section 9 of this Act places the “burden of proof” on the individual to prove they are not a foreigner. The Passport Act regulates the entry and exit of individuals.
Under these acts, the government can:
- Detain
- Deport
- Regulate movement
Important because electoral rolls must not include foreigners.
India and the UN Refugee Convention It is vital to note that India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Consequently, India does not have a formal legal framework recognising “refugees” as a distinct class with guaranteed rights of non-refoulement (not forcing them back to danger) under domestic law. This means that legally, anyone entering India without a visa is treated as an “illegal migrant” under the Foreigners Act, regardless of whether they are fleeing persecution.
Thus, only citizens of India are eligible to be voters under Article 326.
Why This Special Intensive Revision Was Needed – Government of India’s Perspective
The Government and ECI provided multiple justifications for this large-scale Special Intensive Revision.
Demographic Changes & Migration
- Rapid rural-to-urban migration across States.
- Bihar, Kerala, Delhi’s adjoining regions, and coastal States saw large population shifts.
- Routine revisions could not capture these patterns.
Rising Duplicate, non-ordinarily residents and Dead Weights
- Large clusters of deceased individuals’ names remained active.
- People who moved to new cities retained names in old constituencies.
- Who are not “Ordinarily resident” any more.
- Special Intensive Revision field verification became necessary to physically verify these entries to create a clean, lean electoral roll.
Citizenship Verification Concerns, Bogus Entries and National Security
Many border States (West Bengal, Assam earlier, Bihar’s north districts, and coastal UTs) reportedly experienced:
- Illegal immigration
- Residence without valid documents
- or are registered in multiple constituencies as malpractice.
- Voter IDs issued wrongly due to incomplete verification (bogus entries).
The state, through the Special Intensive Revision, aims to identify individuals who cannot establish their citizenship, thereby preventing non-citizens from influencing Indian elections.
Strengthening Electoral Integrity
Government’s perspective:
- Every vote must belong to a genuine, adult Indian citizen.
- Errors compromise democratic legitimacy.
- SIR helps ensure “one person, one vote, one value.”
Preparation for Upcoming Elections
States like Bihar and West Bengal face Assembly elections soon. Clean rolls ensure:
- Reduced disputes
- Transparent election management
- Less scope for impersonation
Issues with Special Intensive Revision
The ECI vs. MHA Conflict A significant infirmity pointed out in the context of the Special Intensive Revision is the question of jurisdiction.
- The Argument: The determination of citizenship is the exclusive domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), not the Election Commission. As petition filed in the Association of Democratic Reform vs ECI, on Bihar SIR, the ECI was demanding documents to prove citizenship during the SIR, and Aadhar and ration cards were not in the list of documents as these not proof of citizenship. However, the MHA has not notified a comprehensive list of documents that prove citizenship.
- The Verdict: The Supreme Court brought in the verdict in Lal Babu Hussein vs. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), which ruled that if a name is already on the roll, it must be presumed the person satisfied the requirements earlier, stated that the ECI cannot arbitrarily demand proof of citizenship without a statutory basis provided by the MHA, and directed the ECI to consider Aadhar, EPIC and ration card as documents, and also ordered the ECI to publish detail list of those deleted names in the Bihar Special intensive revision. This case is still ongoing for cases in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.
General claimed issues
- Risk of Voter Exclusion: Opposition parties like the DMK and TMC argue that requiring old documents—especially from 2002–2003—may disproportionately impact the poor, migrants, and marginalized groups, resulting in the deletion of genuine voters from the rolls.
- Allegations of a Hidden NRC Agenda: Some petitioners before the Supreme Court claim that the SIR effectively functions as a covert implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), forcing citizens to prove nationality—a move not permitted under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly denied this charge.
- Legal Scrutiny: The SIR’s legality is under review in the Supreme Court, with multiple petitions raising constitutional concerns. The Court has acknowledged that the matter seems rooted in a “trust deficit” between stakeholders and the ECI.
- Operational and Technological Challenges: Confusion over the documentation process, along with difficulties accessing non-searchable 2002–2003 rolls, is creating barriers for voters—especially those in remote areas or lacking digital literacy.
- Overburdened Election Staff: BLOs and officials face heavy workloads, stress, and pressure, with some deaths and human rights complaints reported.
- Political Allegations: Accusations of partisan bias and manipulation have surfaced, which the ECI rejects as politically motivated and unfounded.
Pros and Cons of Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
| Pros (Government Perspective) | Cons (Civil Society/Opposition Perspective) |
| Electoral Purity: Ensures the “One Person, One Vote” principle is upheld by removing duplicates. | Disenfranchisement: Legitimate citizens, especially the poor, may lack documents and be deleted from rolls. |
| National Security: Prevents illegal migrants from accessing state power via voting rights. | Jurisdictional Overreach: The ECI acts as a citizenship tribunal without the legal authority (which rests with the MHA). |
| Demographic Accuracy: Updates the rolls to reflect rapid urbanization and migration patterns. | Harassment: Giving lower-level officials (BLOs) power to question citizenship can lead to local-level bias and corruption. |
| Statistical Integrity: Provides a realistic picture of the voting population for better planning. | Burden of Proof: Shifts the burden onto the voter to “re-prove” their citizenship, contradicting the Lal Babu Hussein judgment. |
List of Documents required for Special Intensive Revision
- Government-issued ID cards or Pension Payment Orders from Central/State governments or PSUs.
- Any official document or certificate issued in India by government bodies, banks, post offices, LIC, or PSUs before 1 July 1987.
- Birth certificates issued by authorized authorities.
- Passports.
- Educational certificates, including matriculation, from recognized boards or universities.
- Permanent Residence Certificates from competent state authorities.
- Forest Rights Certificates.
- Caste certificates (SC/ST/OBC) issued by competent authorities.
- Inclusion in the National Register of Citizens (NRC), where applicable.
- Family registers prepared by local or state authorities.
- Land or housing allotment documents issued by the government.
- Aadhaar cards – considered identity proof only, not proof of citizenship, as per Supreme Court guidance (ECI letter dated 09.09.2025).
- Extracts from the Bihar SIR electoral roll as of 1 July 2025.
The ECI may request additional documents if a voter’s citizenship is in doubt, especially since Aadhaar alone does not confirm nationality.
Conclusion
The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is a double-edged sword in India’s democratic journey. On one side, it represents a necessary administrative hygiene exercise to ensure that the voter list—the very document that defines the electorate—is accurate, current, and free from fraud. The intent to remove duplicates and ineligible voters aligns with the highest ideals of a fair election.
Ultimately, the success of this Special Intensive Revision will depend on its execution. It must balance the “positive sense” of electoral purification with the humane protection of legitimate citizens’ rights. A clean electoral roll is the bedrock of democracy, but it must be achieved through a process that is as just and transparent as the election itself.