Deep rot: With the SIR thoroughly vitiated, CEC Gyanesh Kumar must resign

Why in news?

Probe shows two Election Commissioners objected 14 times to SIR decisions; ex-CEC calls SIR illegal.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims: Constitutional body ECI, RPA 1950; Registration of Electors Rules 1960 (Form 6, Rule 21A); CEC & ECs Act 2023; Anoop Baranwal (2023); ADR v ECI (2026)

Mains: GS-II – Salient features of RPA; Appointment, powers and functions of constitutional bodies; Separation of powers 

The findings of the Indian Express Report 

• ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times (Oct 2025–Aug 2026), to mostly decisions taken without their knowledge.
• Form 6: EC Joshi warned (May) Form 6 could not be changed without amending the rules but  the warning was ignored and in July it still asked if applicants or their parents/grandparents were in the “last SIR” roll. EC Sandhu called it “unauthorised and illegal”.
• Centralisation: The Roll database was centralised and the two ECs sought an audit of the same. Moreover, field officials lacked full ERONet access and changes were made centrally that overrode Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) – the statutory authority on eligibility.
• West Bengal: ~60 lakh flagged for software-generated “logical discrepancies”; 9 in 10 appeals decided so far got the names back in the roll.
• Delhi: 24 of 70 seats have fewer electors in draft rolls than actual voters 1.5 years ago.
• ECI’s response : Differing views are normal deliberation; all final decisions in the past year were unanimous; ECINet runs under strict data-security protocols.

What is SIR?

• A Special Intensive Revision is a fresh, house-to-house preparation of the electoral roll, unlike the annual summary revision which only updates the existing roll. 
• ECI ordered it for Bihar on 24 June 2025 (last intensive revision: 2003), invoking Art. 324 + Sec. 21(3), RPA 1950. Bihar’s roll fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore (final roll, 30 Sept 2025). 
• Phase-2 followed in other States, including West Bengal from Nov 2025.

Constitutional and Legal framework

• Art. 324: Superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls vests in ECI. Art. 324(5): CEC removable only like an SC judge; ECs removable only on CEC’s recommendation.
• Art. 325: One general roll; no exclusion on religion, race, caste or sex.
• Art. 326: Adult suffrage – citizen, 18+, not disqualified by law.
• RPA 1950: Sec. 13B – ERO prepares the roll; Sec. 16 – disqualification (non-citizen, unsound mind etc.); Sec. 21(3) – special revision “in such manner as ECI thinks fit”; Sec. 22 – correction of entries; Sec. 24 – appeals; Sec. 28 – Central Govt makes rules after consulting ECI.
• Registration of Electors Rules 1960: Prescribe Form 6 (new electors); Rule 21A – deletion only after due procedure.

Key judgments

• Lal Babu Hussein v ERO (1995): A person already on the roll cannot be deleted without notice and a fair hearing; earlier inclusion carries weight.
• ADR v ECI (2026): Upheld Bihar SIR – power exists under Art. 324 + Sec. 21(3); passes proportionality; ECI may examine citizenship for roll purposes but cannot decide citizenship itself. 

SIR – legal and constitutional

• Clear legal source: Art. 324 read with Sec. 21(3) expressly allows special revision in the manner ECI thinks fit – confirmed in ADR v ECI (2026).
• Constitutional duty: Art. 326 limits franchise to citizens; Sec. 16 bars non-citizens. Verifying eligibility is a duty, not an excess.
• Legitimate aim: Two decades of migration, urbanisation and unreported deaths left rolls with dead, shifted and duplicate entries. Clean rolls protect ‘one person, one vote’.
• Safeguards exist: House-to-house enumeration, claims and objections, appeals under Sec. 24, tribunals with judicial officers; SC supervision during Bihar exercise.
• Judicial finality: Once the SC has upheld the exercise, calling it “illegal” questions a settled legal position.

SIR – illegal and unconstitutional 

• Ultra vires Form 6 change: Forms are part of rules made by the Centre under Sec. 28. ECI cannot alter them alone – Art. 324 cannot override law (Mohinder Singh Gill). Hence EC Sukhbir Sandhu’s “unauthorised and illegal” note.
• Bypassing the ERO: Sec. 13B, 22 and Rule 21A make the ERO the statutory decision-maker. Deletions/changes at central-database level by excluding ERO are without authority of law.
• Reversed burden of proof: Deleting before verification and asking citizens to prove eligibility goes against Lal Babu Hussein and weakens universal adult franchise (Art. 326).
• Citizenship is not ECI’s domain: Under the Citizenship Act 1955, the Centre/competent authority decides citizenship. ADR (2026) itself said ECI cannot decide it – yet the Form 6 “last SIR” question works like a citizenship filter.
• Fails proportionality in practice: 90%+ appeals in West Bengal restored names – shows the means were excessive, not least restrictive (Puttaswamy test).
• Arbitrariness (Art. 14): Software-generated “logical discrepancies” without human scrutiny are manifestly arbitrary (E.P. Royappa 1974; Shayara Bano 2017).
• Collegial breach: Decisions taken without the knowledge of two of three Commissioners go against the unanimity/majority rule of 2023 Act.
• Independence deficit: Executive-dominated panel (2023 Act) chose the CEC; Justice Datta: an ECI must be, and be seen to be, independent.
• Data and privacy: A centralised, un-audited roll database raises privacy and security concerns (Puttaswamy; DPDP Act 2023).

Way ahead

• Immediate audit : Independent technical audit of ECINet/ERONet and the roll database (as the ECs sought); pause further deletions until audit .
• Due process: No deletion without notice, hearing and a reasoned order by the ERO (Lal Babu Hussein; Rule 21A). Burden of proving ineligibility on the State. Accept Aadhaar and past roll entries as presumptive proof.
• Rule of law: Any change in forms only through amendment of the 1960 Rules under Sec. 28, with public consultation.
• Transparency: Publish lists of deletions with reasons (as SC ordered for Bihar, Aug 2025); record and disclose Commission minutes and dissents.
• Independence of ECI: Neutral selection panel – Tarkunde Committee (1975) and Anoop Baranwal (2023): PM, LoP, CJI; Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990): consultation with CJI and LoP; Law Commission 255th Report (2015): collegium of PM, LoP, CJI and equal removal protection for ECs; 2nd ARC (4th Report): broad-based collegium. Larger Bench should decide the 2023 Act quickly.

• “The ECI must not only be independent but also be seen to be independent.” – Justice Dipankar Datta (2026).
• Global practices: Canada and Australia use continuous, data-linked rolls with automatic enrolment; the burden of registration stays largely on the State.

Practice MCQs 

Q1. Consider the following statements:

1. Section 21(3) of the RPA, 1950 empowers the ECI to direct a special revision of electoral rolls in such a manner as it thinks fit.

2. The ECI can alter forms under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 on its own, without amending the Rules.

3. The Electoral Registration Officer is the statutory authority for preparing the roll of a constituency.

How many of the above statements are correct?  

(a) Only one  

(b) Only two  

(c) All three 

(d) None

Answer: (b). Rules are made by the Central Government after consulting the ECI (Sec. 28), so statement 2 is wrong.