Editorial 1: Burden of proof

Context

The SIR’s method of making residents prove their own eligibility is fundamentally flawed.

Introduction

The ongoing Statewide Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has raised serious concerns about its methodologyand implementation. By shifting the burden of proof onto citizens, the process risks undermining the principle of universal adult franchise. Growing confusion, faulty verification, and inconsistent delivery of forms highlight the urgent need for judicial scrutiny to safeguard voter rights.

Background & Context

• The ECI’s Statewide Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is underway in 12 States and UTs, raising concerns due to flaws in both implementation and methodology.
• Even as the Supreme Court hears challenges to the SIR model first used in Bihar, the same process is being applied elsewhere despite its risks.

Implementation Issues

• Voters are required to fill enumeration forms delivered by Block Level Officers (BLOs) and match details with electoral rolls from 2002–2005.
• Although SIR in Bihar didn’t drastically change election results, it caused a sharp fall in the gender ratio of the electorate.
• Other local inconsistencies and distortions were also observed.
• The ECI claims forms have reached most electors, but many genuine voters still struggle to obtain them and face confusion about required documents.
• The mandate that BLOs must visit households is largely ignored in practice.

Legal Position on Residency

• In Dr. Manmohan Singh (Gauhati HC, 1999), “ordinary resident” under the RPA, 1950 was interpreted broadly:
  • A resident is one who habitually lives in a place
  • With intention to stay,
  • And whom a reasonable person would accept as a resident.
• Historically, both the ECI and courts presumed that any adult resident is by default a legitimate voter.

Shift in Burden Under SIR

• The SIR reverses this presumption.
• Even long-time voters must now prove their legitimacy using old records or prescribed documents.
• This shift of burden from the state to citizens creates high risk of disenfranchisement, especially for
  • Married women (name/address changes),
  • Migrants,
  • Informal-sector residents,
  • Groups already affected in Bihar.
• Courts have repeatedly held that a strict reading of “ordinary residence” can undermine democracy.

Judicial Oversight Gaps

• During hearings on Bihar, the Court mostly discussed implementation, placing responsibility on party representatives and volunteers to ensure no genuine voter is excluded.
• It did not examine whether the enumeration form–based methodology itself is constitutionally valid.
• Persistent errors in revised rolls suggest BLOs are overwhelmed, leaving inaccuracies uncorrected.

Alternative Approaches Ignored

• The ECI could have opted for:
  • Patient door-to-door verification,
  • Combined with technology-based de-duplication.
• Instead, it doubled down on an approach centred on “purifying” rolls rather than protecting the franchise.

What the Supreme Court Must Now Address

• As SIR expands nationwide, the Court must move beyond procedural checks.
• A deeper review of the constitutional validity of the SIR methodology is essential.
• The Court should restore the burden of accurate enrolment to the ECI, so citizens are not forced to prove their right to remain on electoral rolls they have long been part of.

Conclusion

As the SIR expands across multiple States, the need for strong constitutional oversight becomes crucial. The process’s emphasis on “purification” over voter protection threatens to disenfranchise vulnerable groups. The Supreme Courtmust restore the responsibility of accurate enrolment to the Election Commission, ensuring that citizens are not made to repeatedly prove their own legitimacy in a democracy that guarantees equal voting rights.