The Election Commission of India (ECI) has taken a long-overdue yet necessary step: a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country. Predictably, opposition parties have rushed to brand the exercise as “vote chori.” But the Supreme Court itself has refused to quash petitions challenging the process, and in doing so has reinforced what the Constitution already makes crystal clear—conducting free, fair, and credible elections is the ECI’s exclusive mandate. Articles 324 to 329 of the Constitution vest the Election Commission with sweeping powers of “superintendence, direction and control” over the entire electoral process. This does not stop at merely scheduling polls or deploying observers. It extends to the very foundation of electoral democracy: the preparation of accurate and uncontaminated voters’ lists. Without a clean roll, every subsequent step is compromised, making a mockery of the “universal adult suffrage” enshrined under Article 326. A fraudulent list is nothing less than a fraud on democracy itself. The SIR comes against the backdrop of mounting evidence of bogus voters—ranging from deceased persons who still “cast” votes, to illegal immigrants whose names mysteriously appear on rolls in certain states notorious for vote-bank politics. Far from being an arbitrary innovation, SIR is a corrective mechanism that was long overdue. The last such intensive revision happened years ago, and the delay has only deepened distortions. Opposition parties, particularly the RJD-led bloc in Bihar and their national mascot Rahul Gandhi, have peddled the false narrative of a BJP-backed “vote theft.” Yet, when pressed, they have produced no evidence. On the contrary, the ECI, on the Supreme Court’s directive, has published both deleted and final voters’ lists in the public domain, subjecting itself to unprecedented scrutiny. If there were indeed irregularities, why has the Opposition refused to sign affidavits substantiating its claims? Their outrage appears more like preemptive panic than principled resistance.
The Commission has also demonstrated sensitivity to allegations of partisanship. The SIR framework includes safeguards like mandatory declaration forms for applicants. Those seeking inclusion must prove their Indian birth credentials—before July 1, 1987, outright, and between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, by also furnishing parental documents. This directly addresses the infiltration of illegal migrants onto rolls, an issue no serious democracy can ignore. Crucially, while Aadhaar has been accepted as supporting ID, the EC has rightly reiterated that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship—thereby maintaining constitutional consistency. Article 324 does not make the ECI subordinate to the whims of ruling or opposition parties. It stands as an independent constitutional authority, accountable only to the law and the people. Time and again, the Supreme Court has upheld this autonomy, recognising the EC as the custodian of free and fair elections. The present decision to go for SIR nationwide is therefore not a favour extended by the Commission; it is a constitutional duty that cannot be obstructed by political sloganeering. The logistical challenges are not small. State CEOs, during their meeting on Wednesday in national capital, highlighted region-specific hurdles—from tribal belts where local councils issue certificates, to coastal states where identity proofs differ widely. But the Commission’s insistence on tailoring solutions to local realities proves its seriousness in creating voter rolls that are both inclusive and credible. For too long, electoral lists have been treated as political currency, manipulated to secure power rather than reflect the people’s will. The SIR is a rare opportunity to reset the system, and it’s timing ahead of Bihar and other assembly polls is significant. A democracy of India’s scale cannot afford suspicion to fester about the integrity of its elections. By pushing forward with the SIR, despite the noise, the Election Commission is not just exercising its mandate—it is defending the sanctity of Indian democracy. To oppose it is to oppose the Constitution itself.
