The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has emerged as one of the most contested governance developments in India in early 2026. The process, initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar and West Bengal ahead of upcoming state assembly elections, has generated significant controversy over alleged irregularities in voter deletions, claims of targeting minority and Opposition-supporting voters, and broader questions about the institutional independence of the ECI. The Opposition alliance has gone so far as to pass a resolution seeking the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, while the Supreme Court has intervened multiple times to oversee the process, most recently directing that 250 judicial officers in West Bengal begin work on resolving approximately 45 lakh disputed SIR cases.
This development sits at the heart of India’s democratic architecture, engaging fundamental questions about the right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution, the institutional design of the ECI under Article 324, the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act 2023, and the role of the judiciary in supervising electoral administration.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
Table of Contents
The Special Intensive Revision Process
Five Important Key Points
- The SIR process involves a comprehensive review and update of electoral rolls, including deletion of names of deceased, permanently migrated, or untraceable voters, and addition of newly eligible voters.
- In Bihar, approximately 65 lakh voter names were deleted during the SIR exercise, which has been challenged before the Supreme Court on grounds of procedural impropriety and alleged targeting of minorities.
- In West Bengal, approximately 58 lakh names were deleted when the draft voter list was published, with the Supreme Court directing 250 judicial officers to resolve nearly 45 lakh disputed cases before the final roll publication on February 28, 2026.
- Tamil Nadu published its final electoral rolls after SIR, showing 5.67 crore electors, with 27.53 lakh eligible electors added and 4.23 lakh ineligible ones deleted since the draft rolls in December 2025.
- The Supreme Court, in a related case, directed that persons whose homes had been demolished by local authorities could approach the District Election Officer regarding their inclusion in electoral rolls during the SIR.
Electoral rolls are the foundational documents of democratic representation. Article 326 of the Constitution provides for universal adult suffrage, and the right to be registered as a voter is a legal right central to democratic participation. Any procedural irregularity in the maintenance of electoral rolls, whether through improper deletions or the failure to add eligible voters, directly affects this right.
The SIR process is governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324 to superintend, direct, and control the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls. However, the exercise of these powers is subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court’s repeated interventions in the current SIR process signal that it does not consider the Commission’s actions to have been procedurally adequate.
Constitutional Architecture of the Election Commission
Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission as a permanent constitutional body with extensive powers over election administration. The Chief Election Commissioner holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through the same procedure as a Supreme Court judge — by a parliamentary resolution supported by a special majority on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This security of tenure is designed to insulate the CEC from political pressure.
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the 1991 Act, modified the appointment process by removing the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee. The 2023 Act provides for a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. This change was controversial because it followed the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), which had directed that the appointment committee should include the CJI until Parliament enacted a law — a direction the government effectively overrode through the legislation.
The constitutional validity of the 2023 Act has been challenged in Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, with the next hearing scheduled for March 2026. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the institutional independence of the ECI and the broader question of how constitutional bodies that must be insulated from executive influence can be structured.
The Controversy Over Voter Deletions
The Opposition’s allegations of improper voter deletions in the SIR process centre on the claim that the process was rushed, that field-level verification was inadequate, and that the deletions disproportionately affected minority voters and those in constituencies where the Opposition has a strong base. In Bihar, the deletion of 65 lakh names out of a total electorate is extraordinarily large by any comparative standard and raises legitimate questions about the adequacy of the verification process.
The Supreme Court’s intervention — including directing that the ECI distribute enumeration forms to residents of Akbar Nagar in Lucknow whose buildings were demolished, enabling them to participate in the SIR — reflects a concern that technicalities of electoral administration were being used to deny voting rights to people who retain their status as citizens and voters despite lacking a fixed physical address.
The deployment of 250 judicial officers in West Bengal to resolve disputed SIR cases is unprecedented and represents a dramatic escalation of judicial involvement in electoral administration. While the Supreme Court has extensive supervisory powers over election administration under Article 142 and its appellate jurisdiction, the direct deployment of state judicial officers for electoral work blurs institutional boundaries and raises questions about judicial independence in the political context of pre-election Bengal.
ECI’s Constitutional Mandate and Operational Challenges
The ECI operates under a constitutional mandate that combines administrative, quasi-judicial, and supervisory functions. As the Supreme Court noted in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), the ECI’s powers under Article 324 are plenary and cannot be limited by ordinary legislation. However, this plenary power must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice, transparency, and procedural fairness.
The operational challenge of conducting an intensive revision of electoral rolls in a large and populous state like Bihar or West Bengal within a compressed timeframe, with limited field verification capacity, is genuine. The ECI’s attempt to complete a comprehensive revision before the upcoming assembly elections in both states reflects a legitimate institutional objective. The controversy lies in whether adequate safeguards were in place to prevent wrongful deletions and ensure that eligible voters were not disenfranchised.
The broader question this episode raises is whether the current legal and institutional framework governing electoral roll revision is adequate for a democracy of India’s scale. The Representation of the People Act 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules 1960 were designed for a much smaller electorate and do not fully anticipate the challenges of digital verification, population mobility, demolition drives, and the use of AI-assisted electoral management systems.
Judicial Oversight and Democratic Accountability
The Supreme Court’s active engagement with the SIR process represents a pattern of judicial intervention in electoral administration that has become more pronounced since the 1990s. Beginning with T.N. Seshan’s tenure as CEC, which saw the court repeatedly uphold the ECI’s independence and powers, the relationship between the judiciary and the ECI has evolved from deference to active oversight.
This judicial oversight is not without tension. The ECI is a constitutional body with its own independent mandate, and excessive judicial micro-management of its operations risks substituting judicial preferences for the ECI’s constitutional authority. At the same time, the court’s interventions in the current SIR controversy appear motivated by a genuine concern that procedural failures in electoral roll maintenance were threatening to disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters.
Way Forward
A sustainable resolution to the tensions surrounding the SIR process requires structural reforms rather than case-by-case judicial intervention. These reforms should include: statutory timelines for electoral roll revision with mandatory verification periods; digitisation and real-time updating of electoral rolls using Aadhaar-linked databases with adequate privacy safeguards; an independent monitoring mechanism for the SIR process; clear grievance redressal channels for voters whose names are incorrectly deleted; and a transparent, publicly accessible audit trail for all additions and deletions to electoral rolls.
The broader question of the ECI’s institutional independence — particularly in the context of the 2023 appointment legislation — requires either legislative revision to restore the CJI’s role in the selection committee or, if the Supreme Court strikes down the 2023 Act, a fresh legislative framework that balances executive accountability with genuine institutional independence.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic is directly relevant to UPSC GS Paper 2 (Constitutional bodies, Elections and Election Commission, Fundamental Rights — Article 326, Federalism and Centre-State relations) and connects to GS Paper 4 (Ethics, accountability of constitutional bodies). The constitutional provisions governing the ECI — Articles 324 to 329 — are core examination topics, and the current controversy provides excellent analytical material for Mains answers and essay preparation.
For SSC examinations, questions on the Election Commission of India, its powers and composition, landmark judgments related to elections, and electoral laws are regularly featured in General Awareness sections.