Special Intensive Revision, Electoral Rolls and the Constitution Bench Question: Is Universal Adult Franchise Under Strain?

Opposition parties, student groups and citizens protested across India on Gandhi Jayanti, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. In Delhi, Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was enforced around Jantar Mantar, Metro stations were closed and hundreds were detained. The protests concern the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The same week, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench split on the challenge to the CEC and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed on whether a Bench of two could decide the matter. The question of who appoints the referee and how the referee conducts voter verification is now before the Court.

For aspirants, the topic connects Article 324, Article 326, the Representation of the People Acts, judicial architecture and the right to protest. It is directly relevant to GS-II answers on electoral reforms and institutional independence.

Background and Context

SIR is a house-to-house enumeration that rebuilds rolls by asking electors to establish eligibility, often by linking themselves to the previous intensive revision. It was first used in Bihar in 2025 and then extended to other States and Union Territories.

Five Important Key Points

• About 13.4 crore electors have been removed from draft rolls across 30 States and UTs, roughly 14% of the pre-revision electorate.
• Deletions rose with each phase: 8.3% in Bihar, 12.9% across the 12 States and UTs of Phase 2, and 17% in Phase 3.
• The ECI has directed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to identify eligible voters left out and enrol them through Form 6 within a month.
• In West Bengal, 22.21 lakh appeals remain pending before appellate tribunals, and these voters are excluded from the Form 6 re-enrolment drive.
• On September 23, the Supreme Court split on the validity of the 2023 appointment law, leaving the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consider a Constitution Bench.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI. Article 326 guarantees elections on the basis of adult suffrage. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) prepares and revises rolls. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe forms: Form 6 for new enrolment and Form 7 for objections and deletion.

In Mohinder Singh Gill (1978), the Supreme Court read Article 324 as a reservoir of power, subject to law and natural justice. Lal Babu Hussain (1995) held that voters already on the roll cannot be deleted on suspicion of non-citizenship without notice and a fair opportunity. These cases frame the present dispute.

The Appointment Question

Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023) held that Election Commissioners must be insulated from exclusive executive control, and a Constitution Bench placed the CJI on the selection panel as an interim measure. Parliament’s December 2023 law replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister, giving the executive a two-to-one majority.

Justice Datta held that Article 145(3), which requires five judges for a substantial question of constitutional interpretation, was not triggered, because Baranwal had already settled the governing standard. Justice Sharma held that the absence of a ruling on this particular statute required a larger Bench. The joint order suggests a permanent Constitution Bench, an idea the Law Commission’s 229th Report (2009) had proposed.

Governance Concerns

Three concerns stand out.

The first is burden of proof. The process places on electors the duty to prove eligibility, and deletions often precede verification. The Hindu’s Ground Zero report documents voters struck off for “logical discrepancies” such as a father’s name spelt differently across rolls.

The second is procedural integrity. Form 6 was reportedly altered without amending the Rules. The Delhi report shows EROs and Assistant EROs named as objectors in 25 Form 7 cases. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa called this “unheard of”, though not necessarily illegal if followed by due process. A new ECINet option now lets EROs clear electors without hearings or documents.

The third is centralisation. Critics allege that ECINet curbs the statutory authority of EROs, and the ECI has set up a committee to certify the platform’s legal compliance.

Social and Democratic Impact

The deleted are disproportionately poor, migrant, minority and women voters. Deletion carries consequences beyond voting, such as suspended ration benefits and harassment. Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi has questioned whether deleted voters can be told to file Form 6, a form for new voters. The ECI estimates that roughly 72% of deleted names fall in absent, shifted or duplicate categories, which suggests that many are recoverable.

The Right to Protest

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect speech and peaceful assembly, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3). In Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), the Supreme Court held that citizens’ right to assemble peacefully is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away by arbitrary executive action. Mass detentions, Internet shutdowns and blanket prohibitory orders must satisfy proportionality.

Bihar Connection

Bihar was the laboratory of SIR. About 47 lakh names were deleted there before the 2025 Assembly elections, and the Siwan voters in The Hindu’s report say they could not vote. The Supreme Court’s interim directions in 2025, including acceptance of Aadhaar as an additional identity document, shaped later phases.

Way Forward

• Statutory backing: codify SIR procedure through Rules under Section 28 of the 1950 Act, rather than portal changes.
• Transparency: publish deletion lists with reasons, and allow suo motu inclusion where an ERO is satisfied.
• Safeguards: reverse the burden for existing electors, with deletion only after notice and hearing.
• Reform of appointments: restore an independent selection mechanism, as Baranwal envisaged.
• Judicial architecture: constitute a permanent Constitution Bench with a transparent roster procedure.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

UPSC: GS-II: electoral reforms, constitutional bodies, Representation of the People Act, judiciary and separation of powers. Essay: democracy and institutional trust.

SSC: Article 324, Article 326, ECI, Form 6 and Form 7, CEC appointment, Article 145(3).

Key terms: SIR, ERO, BLO, ECINet, logical discrepancy, Anoop Baranwal, Mohinder Singh Gill, Lal Babu Hussain, Section 163 BNSS.