Editorial 2: ​Gates and windows

Context

A single round of appeals is insufficient to address the large-scale deletions in electoral rolls.

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (ECI) launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to clean electoral rolls by removing duplicates, outdated entries, and ineligible names. While the objective is legitimate, the design and execution of the SIR raise serious concerns about speed, exclusion, transparency, and the shifting of responsibility from the State to voters.

Purpose of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to clean electoral rolls.
• The aim is to remove duplicates, update outdated addresses, and delete entries of deceased or migrated voters.
• Such corrections are necessary because electoral rolls in India tend to accumulate errors over time.

Design Flaws in the Current SIR

• The present SIR is modelled on the Bihar exercise, despite similar problems resurfacing across States.
• The ECI appears reluctant to acknowledge or correct systemic flaws already observed.
• The fast-paced execution raises concerns about fairness and accuracy.

Speed vs Inclusion: A Risky Trade-off

• The responsibility of proving eligibility has shifted from the State to individual voters.
• This suggests that exclusion of eligible voters is being treated as an acceptable risk.
• Although digital tools could justify speed, they also exclude many citizens.

Digital Gaps and Arbitrary Deletions

• Voters are expected to rely on 2002–2005 electoral rolls, which are not machine-readable.
• Even minor data mismatches are being used as grounds for deletion.
• The scale of exclusions in Phase I draft rolls is a serious warning sign.
• It is unreasonable to expect that one round of appeals can correct these errors.

Limits of the Claims and Objections Process

• Errors are corrected only if voters identify and pursue them.
• The process favours those with time, literacy, digital access, social support, and confidence.
• If a voter is unaware of deletion or unable to appeal, the mistake becomes an official fact.

Transparency and Accountability Deficits

• Key information is not consistently available, including:
  • Precise reasons for deletions
  • Granular demographic data, such as gender-wise patterns
• This restricts public scrutiny by civil society, journalists, smaller parties, and voters while corrections are still possible.

Administrative Constraints on Field Staff

• The SIR depends on house-to-house verification, form distribution, digitisation, and repeat visits.
• These tasks are performed by State staff with multiple responsibilities.
• Tight deadlines increase the risk of target-chasing over task completion.

SIR as Administrative Gatekeeping

• The process effectively creates a two-tier electorate:
  • Those who can repeatedly prove eligibility in prescribed formats
  • Those who cannot meet procedural demands
• This administrative gatekeeping undermines inclusive democratic participation.
• A single-appeal window cannot resolve this, as the appeals process itself is part of the gate.

Conclusion

In effect, the current SIR risks institutionalising exclusion rather than ensuring electoral integrity. High speed, digital barriers, weak transparency, and limited appeal mechanisms disproportionately affect the most vulnerable voters. A single-appeal window cannot correct systemic flaws. For democracy to remain inclusive, administrative efficiency must not override the fundamental right to vote.