IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

18 Nov 2025 : The need for a social audit for SIR 2.0

Editorial 2 : ​​​The need for a social audit for SIR 2.0

Context

The ongoing Special Intensive Revision exercise lacks proper rules, oversight, scrutiny, and auditing mechanisms.

 

 

Introduction

Commenting on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2.0 across 12 States and UTs, The Hindu editorial noted that the experience in Bihar indicates the process may risk disenfranchising a large number of people. It added that as the exercise progresses, civil society, the media, and political parties must maintain strong vigilance to safeguard the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.

Key Issues Emerging from the Bihar SIR Experience

  • The recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral roll involved a documentation-heavy, re-verification process that sparked concerns about mass disenfranchisement and the quiet introduction of a citizenship-screening mechanism.
  • The resulting revised electoral rolls show serious anomalies—such as a sharp fall in the adult-elector ratio, disproportionate deletions of women and Muslim voters, and the presence of duplicate and bogus entries—indicating that disenfranchisement has already occurred.
  • The Election Commission of India (ECI) has faced criticism for its conduct during the Bihar SIR, with its court submissions and public statements suggesting a growing resistance to scrutiny, reduced institutional accountability, and a greater focus on defending its authority rather than ensuring an inclusive and accurate electoral roll.
  • The Supreme Court, while overseeing the legality of the process, has avoided addressing the fundamental issueof whether the ECI possesses the legal authority to conduct an SIR or whether any Rules exist to govern it. Its limited interventions corrected only minor procedural gaps, allowing systemic flaws to persist, thereby risking the validation of an unwarranted and discriminatory framework that disproportionately impacts minority and marginalised groups.
  • A further challenge relates to voting rights of internal migrants, especially acute in Tamil Nadu.
    • Under Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, electoral inclusion requires that a person be an “ordinarily resident” in a constituency.
    • Section 20, which defines this term, is outdated and fails to reflect the realities of modern migration patterns—such as long-term migrants, short-term/seasonal migrants, and circular migrants—resulting in significant gaps in ensuring their electoral inclusion.

 

Need for Social Audit in Electoral Roll Revision

  • The current Special Intensive Revision (SIR) lacks proper Rules, oversight, scrutiny, and audit, underscoring the need for a mandatory social audit in electoral roll revision and verification.
  • Social audits in India are an established tool of participatory democracy, enabling communities to review and verify activities undertaken in their name, including the entire cycle of a public process.
  • The Constitution, through Articles 243A and 243J, empowers community-based monitoring and auditing; over time, social audits have become legally institutionalised.
  • The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has also endorsed social audits as essential for monitoring mass programmes, prescribing detailed processes and procedures.
  • Since India’s electoral system is founded on universal adult franchise, every eligible citizen must be present on the electoral roll; however, the present SIR lacks checks and balances, making it vulnerable to external influence and errors.
  • Expecting all voters to repeatedly apply or reapply, or to furnish fresh proof of citizenship, is impractical in a country where 30–40% of voters already do not turn out. This reflects an abdication of responsibility by the ECI in preparing accurate rolls.
  • A mandatory social audit ensures that additions and deletions in the roll are transparent, community-verified, and inclusive.

 

Social Audit as the Most Inclusive and Reliable Method

  • A social audit involves open, collective examination of base documents and records, supported by public testimonies, enabling people to verify or contest the information in the electoral rolls.
  • Conducting social audits at the panchayat, ward, or booth level ensures the most intensive, transparent, and community-driven revision of electoral rolls, minimising manipulation and maximising inclusion.
  • This method has strong precedent: in 2003, when J. M. Lyngdoh was the Chief Election Commissioner, the ECI—acting on inputs from citizens’ groups—directed decentralised social audits in gram sabhas and ward sabhas across five poll-bound States.
  • Using the booth-level officer’s updated rolls as the base, the process produced significant corrections; for instance, over 7 lakh changes were made in Rajasthan alone, demonstrating the effectiveness of community-driven verification.
  • The success of this earlier model reinforces that people-centred auditing is the best safeguard for an accurate, inclusive, and reliable electoral roll.

 

Conclusion

The ECI would do well to adopt this approach and formulate clear Rules — including a mandatory social audit — in consultation with civil society and political parties before moving ahead with SIR 2.0. This is essential to protect the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.