The voters’ list forms the base document for polling in all electoral democracies, irrespective of the overall quality and integrity of the process. There are multiple global models for creating the electoral roll, such as compiling it from a national civil register or through enumerators. There are also countries where the onus is shifted onto the citizens, requiring them to approach registration officials.
In India, the universal adult suffrage provision of Article 326 gives constitutional protection for enrolment to adult citizens. This right is subject to certain statutory limitations by way of disqualification on the grounds of unsound mind, conviction for a few specified offences and disqualification for a person found guilty of corrupt practice in elections, apart from the disqualification for non-citizens. Under Article 324, the responsibility of enabling and empowering the citizens in availing of this sacred right is entrusted to the Election Commission.
The Constituent Assembly reposed faith in one Central Election Commission to protect the interest of people of all backgrounds. When the framing of the Constitution was under consideration, the initial proposal was to have one central election commission handling elections to the central legislature and separate commissions for elections in each province or state. The main argument for changing to a single Election Commission for all elections was that, in many places, there were people who hailed from other provinces and under a provincial election commission, such people—who did not belong to a place racially, culturally or linguistically—could face discrimination for registration on the list.
Let’s look at the legal provisions under this framework. Section 21(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 mandates revision of the electoral roll of each constituency before every election. The same section also enables the commission to carry out annual revision of rolls even when there is no election. These revisions are to be conducted in the manner specified in the Rules (The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960).
The Rules provide that the revision of rolls under Section 21(2) shall either be an intensive revision or a summary revision. The former effectively means a de novo preparation of rolls with enumerators visiting every household and collecting names and particulars of all adult members ordinarily residing there. For collecting such details, the electoral registration officer (ERO) is to send a letter (through enumerators) addressed to an occupant of the house (the head of the family or a senior member) whose responsibility it then becomes to provide the details. The ERO’s letter, for which there is a statutory format in Form 4, also clearly specifies that only names of persons who are Indian citizens and ordinarily resident there should be furnished. The list so provided is signed by the person giving the details, thereby owning responsibility for the data furnished.
Penal provisions in Section 31 of the 1950 Act providing for imprisonment up to a year is a deterrence and remedy for any false information. With the details so collected, a draft roll is published for claims and objections. What emerges from the Rules, therefore, is that for making the draft roll in an intensive revision, the details provided by the head of family form the basis; they do not specify any particular set of documents for establishing citizenship or tracing link to any previous roll.
On the other hand, a summary revision of the roll is primarily for updating and purifying an existing roll with additions, deletions and corrections. Claims and objections are invited on the current roll, using it as the basic draft. In both the intensive and summary revisions, the ERO is required to publish details of claims and objections through a notice at his office, and may either accept a claim or objection if there is no demand for a hearing from any person and the ERO is satisfied about the validity of the claim or objection. Similarly, the ERO may upfront reject a claim or objection if it is not made within the specified period, or is not made in the prescribed format and manner. In other cases, the ERO decides claims and objections after affording the opportunity of a hearing to the persons concerned and the final roll is brought out thereafter.
Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the 1950 Act empowers the Election Commission to order a special revision of the roll of any constituency or part of a constituency after recording the reasons. This special revision can be done at any time and conducted in the manner as the Election Commission may deem fit. For the ‘special intensive revision’ conducted in Bihar in the second half of last year, and subsequently in a dozen other states, the Election Commission invoked this special provision to specify new measures such as linkage to the rolls of 2002/2003 and supporting documentary evidence.
The question whether the special revision for specific reasons envisaged under sub-section (3) can be ordered across the board in all constituencies was one of the several issues raised by the petitioners in the Bihar SIR-related petitions before the Supreme Court. In the judgement delivered last week, the apex court held that it can be done. The other contentions challenging the constitutionality of the SIR directions, specifying particular supporting documents for enrolment, and relying on linkage to 2003 rolls were all rejected while upholding the SIR undertaken.
Prior to the recent SIRs, the Election Commission has conducted summary revisions on an annual basis and brought out revised rolls in the first half of every January. Each of these revisions was known to be an extensive exercise, with the active participation of the political parties accompanied by well-orchestrated public awareness campaigns. In the last round of summary revisions concluded in January 2025, an electorate of 99 crore within a population of more than 140 crore appeared to be a reasonably fair representation of the adult population on the rolls.
Now that new standards have been set for enrolment, it is more than likely that future revisions will follow a similar path. When the new Census figures are released and SIR is completed in all states, it will be interesting to study the electorate strength against the adult population. If shifting of electors is indeed a primary cause for removing names in a state, there should be a corresponding increase in another state. The question whether the new measures form a headwind for potentially genuine electors may continue to seek answers.
K F Wilfred | Former Senior Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India
(Views are personal)