Special Intensive Revision, the Chief Election Commissioner and the Electoral Roll Controversy: Constitutional Questions for Indian Democracy

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) on 29 September 2026 passed a resolution alleging “match-fixing” between the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar. It demanded the CEC’s removal, an immediate suspension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and the restoration of about 13.3 crore names that the party says were deleted. The Bharatiya Janata Party rejected the charge, accusing the Congress of undermining constitutional institutions. Whatever one makes of the politics, the episode has pushed the design of India’s electoral administration into the centre of public debate.

The same day, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the following week a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh seeking that the CEC not exercise the functions of the Election Commission (EC) unilaterally, and that business be conducted through unanimous decisions of the three-member Commission. A day earlier, a petition seeking recall of the 23 September split verdict on the validity of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 had been filed, citing a “reasonable apprehension of bias”. Meanwhile, The Hindu’s reporting documented lapses in the handling of Forms 6 and 7 in Delhi and Karnataka.

For UPSC aspirants the topic sits at the junction of Article 324, universal adult suffrage, the separation of powers and the credibility of an institution on which every other democratic right depends. A free and fair election is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and a defective electoral roll compromises it at the source.

Background and Context

Five Important Key Points

• The SIR, first conducted in Bihar in 2025, rebuilds the electoral roll through fresh enumeration rather than a routine update, and is now under way in several States including Delhi and Karnataka.
• The CWC has demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister and Home Minister, the removal of the CEC and a halt to the SIR, allegations that the government and the EC dispute.
• On 29 September the Supreme Court agreed to list next week a petition seeking to restrain the CEC from acting unilaterally in the name of the Commission.
• The 23 September split verdict on the 2023 appointment law saw Justice Dipankar Datta decline a reference to a Constitution Bench while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that one was needed.
• The EC has reverted to the original online Form 6, with the SIR declaration confined to States where the exercise is ongoing, and extended Delhi’s claims-and-objections deadline to 30 October, with the final roll due on 4 December.

Constitutional Framework of Electoral Administration

Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. Article 324(5) protects the CEC by providing that he may be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge, while other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation. Article 326 guarantees elections on the basis of adult suffrage to every citizen aged eighteen or above who is not otherwise disqualified. Articles 327 and 328 empower Parliament and State legislatures to make laws on elections, which is the source of the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) the Court held that Article 324 fills gaps left by legislation, but that the Commission must act fairly and within the law.

The Appointment Question and the 2023 Act

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) a Constitution Bench directed that appointments to the Commission be made by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament legislated. Parliament then enacted the 2023 Act, which replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister, giving the executive a numerical majority on the selection panel. Critics argue this undoes the independence the Court sought to secure; defenders say Article 324(2) expressly leaves the matter to Parliament. The split verdict of 23 September has left this question unresolved and the Act operative. The petitioner’s recall plea, alleging that the son of one judge is a standing counsel for the EC, raises a distinct issue of judicial propriety under the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

What the SIR Is and What the Court Has Held

The SIR departs from the routine “summary revision” by requiring electors to be enumerated afresh and, in several phases, to establish linkage with the previous intensive revision. The Supreme Court, as noted in commentary, allowed the EC to examine citizenship for the limited purpose of preparing the roll, while holding that it cannot itself adjudicate citizenship. Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 disqualifies non-citizens from registration, but the determination of citizenship belongs to the Central government under the Citizenship Act, 1955. In Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) the Court had held that names cannot be deleted without notice and a fair hearing. The tension between administrative speed and procedural fairness is the core of the SIR debate.

Documented Irregularities: Forms 6 and 7

The Hindu reported that in Delhi, booth-level agents bypassed the EC’s cap of ten applications a day by filing through the ECINET portal, which imposes no such limit; one BJP agent filed 35 objections in two days. Of 1,095 Form 7 objections filed between 21 and 27 September, around 80 per cent appear to have been filed by individuals against their own names, a statistical oddity that demands explanation. In Karnataka, more than 4,000 deletions were sought through bulk Form 7 applications largely against Muslim voters, with 1,363 applications in Babaleshwar filed by just ten people. In some Bhalki cases, the voters’ details were already printed and only the objector’s name was handwritten. Separately, the EC removed the online requirement to fill parents’ and grandparents’ details in Form 6 and reverted to the original format after reported internal dissent among Commissioners. Form 7 disposals also outnumbered Form 6 disposals in Delhi despite the latter being more numerous, which raises questions about the hearing required before deletion.

Political Contestation and Institutional Trust

The CWC resolution frames the SIR as a threat to universal franchise, and the Leader of the Opposition has urged the party to press the “vote chori” campaign. The BJP counters that the Opposition ignores duplicate and dead entries and is attacking a constitutional body after electoral setbacks. The Election Commission’s own reported internal disagreements, and the open letter by a former Union Home Secretary, R.K. Singh, alleging illegality, add to the perception problem. The legitimacy of an umpire rests less on its formal powers than on the confidence of all players, and that is what is now at stake.

The Bihar Connection

Bihar was the first State to undergo the SIR, and its outcomes are the reference point for the current debate. The electoral roll there began the exercise with about 7.89 crore electors and ended with a final roll of 7.42 crore. Bihar’s high rate of seasonal and long-term out-migration means that a large number of legitimate voters are “absent” from their addresses at the time of enumeration, making them especially vulnerable to deletion under the ground of “absent or permanently shifted”. Seemanchal districts with high minority populations and the flood-displaced households of the Kosi-Gandak belt face documentary challenges. Because ex-Home Secretary R.K. Singh, himself from Bihar, has contested the SIR’s legality, the State remains at the heart of the controversy.

Comparative Perspective

The United Kingdom moved to individual electoral registration in 2014 and saw a measurable fall in registered voters, illustrating that registration reforms can carry exclusion costs. In the United States, voter-roll purges under the National Voter Registration Act are governed by strict notice and waiting-period rules after litigation such as Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018). Canada and Australia rely on continuous, data-matched updating with statutory safeguards, and Canada’s electoral commission is accountable to Parliament rather than the executive. The lesson is that accuracy in the roll and inclusion of voters must be balanced by transparent procedure.

Way Forward

The EC should publish machine-readable Form 7 and Form 10 data on its portals daily, including objector identity and outcome. Bulk filings should be flagged by system design and subjected to field verification before any notice is issued. A speaking order by the Electoral Registration Officer, after a hearing, should be mandatory for every deletion. Parliament should reconsider the composition of the appointment committee, possibly restoring a judicial member. Political parties should be supplied roll data in a usable format, as the Congress demands, and an independent audit of the SIR in Bihar should be published. Finally, the Supreme Court should decide the constitutional questions early, since electoral schedules do not wait.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

UPSC: GS-II (Constitutional bodies, Election Commission, Representation of the People Acts, electoral reforms, judiciary); Essay (democracy and institutional trust). SSC: Polity (Articles 324 to 329, Election Commission composition, voting age, RPA 1950/1951). Key terms: SIR, Form 6, Form 7, Form 10, ECINET, Article 324(5), Anoop Baranwal (2023), CEC Act 2023, Lal Babu Hussein (1995), Booth-Level Agent, Electoral Registration Officer.