It is high time the Congress and its motley band of allies ended their manufactured outrage over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. The Supreme Court, while hearing petitions against the Election Commission’s decision for the second day, has made it abundantly clear: the EC is well within its constitutional and legal powers to undertake such corrective measures. On Wednesday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi went a step further, calling the SIR exercise “voter-friendly.” The court noted that the number of documents an elector could submit had been increased from seven in the earlier summary revision to eleven in the SIR — a change that expands, not restricts, the scope for inclusion. Petitioners’ claim that excluding Aadhaar was “disenfranchising” voters was deftly countered: a higher number of acceptable documents broadens access, the bench observed. That is the crux. The SIR is not some sinister plot to strike names off the rolls; it is a targeted clean-up to ensure the integrity of the voter list — something all political parties should welcome. The Supreme Court rightly observed that any such exercise must be above suspicion. But suspicion is not proof, and political rhetoric is not evidence. The EC’s methodology has been endorsed by the highest court, with only minor slips — inevitable when local schoolteachers are pressed into election duty, who are bound to be more loyal the party in power of that state. Yet the Congress and its allies have chosen the path of obstruction. Instead of monitoring the process and cooperating with the EC, they prefer to hurl wild accusations of “vote theft.” This is classic political theatre: sow doubt, delegitimise institutions, and hope that some mud sticks before the next election. If Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, truly has ironclad proof of large-scale voter deletions to benefit the ruling party, he should place it before the court or the Election Commission — not wave it around at press conferences like a prop in a street play.
His frustration is understandable; the Congress did marginally better in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls than in 2019, largely by pushing fear-mongering narratives that the BJP, if given an absolute majority, would “scrap the Constitution” and abolish reservations. Post-poll, however, the electorate seems to have wised up, returning to the BJP in subsequent state elections in Maharashtra, Haryana, and Delhi. If there’s one lesson the Congress should have learned by now, it is that flogging flimsy causes only backfires. The “vote chori” charge is a textbook example. The BJP has already countered with awkward facts: Sonia Gandhi’s name appearing on the electoral rolls in 1980 while she still held Italian citizenship. She became an Indian citizen only in 1983, and her name was reportedly removed from the rolls in 1982 after a public outcry. This raises an obvious question: despite marrying Rajiv Gandhi in 1968, why did she refuse to take Indian citizenship for a full 15 years? Add to this the Congress’s own history of installing pliant Chief Election Commissioners — such as M.S. Gill, who later joined the party and became a minister — and its moral high ground crumbles. Electoral roll revision is not optional housekeeping; it is a constitutional necessity. It keeps elections free from bogus entries, including those of illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. The only people who should fear such an exercise are those who rely on phantom votes to tilt the scales in their favour. By stonewalling the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and maligning the Election Commission, the Congress risks looking like a party desperate to protect a compromised voter base. The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the EC’s corrective measures has given the process both legal and moral legitimacy — though the final verdict is yet to be pronounced. A responsible opposition would now pivot to constructive engagement: monitor the process, flag genuine errors, and ensure every eligible citizen can vote. If the Congress cannot rise to that standard, it will confirm what many voters already suspect — that its protests are less about protecting democracy and more about protecting its own dwindling political fortunes. Respect for the Supreme Court’s authority, respect for the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate, and above all, respect for the Indian voter — these are non-negotiable in any functioning democracy.
