SIR and the citizen’s right
SIR electoral rolls and citizen rights are under intense scrutiny following revelations that the process is wrongly disenfranchising thousands of eligible voters, reversing the founding principles of Indian democracy
West Bengal's electoral roll revisions have uncovered significant exclusions, raising concerns about voter rights and the integrity of Indian democracy. The high rate of name restorations after appeals suggests a flawed process that could have impacted election outcomes and undermines the core principle of universal adult franchise. This situation is viewed as part of a larger trend of weakening democratic institutions and shifting the burden of proof onto citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote, thereby challenging the very authority of the Indian state.
West Bengal's electoral roll revisions have uncovered significant exclusions, raising concerns about voter rights and the integrity of Indian democracy. The high rate of name restorations after appeals suggests a flawed process that could have impacted election outcomes and undermines the core principle of universal adult franchise. This situation is viewed as part of a larger trend of weakening democratic institutions and shifting the burden of proof onto citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote, thereby challenging the very authority of the Indian state.
West Bengal's electoral roll revisions have uncovered significant exclusions, raising concerns about voter rights and the integrity of Indian democracy. The high rate of name restorations after appeals suggests a flawed process that could have impacted election outcomes and undermines the core principle of universal adult franchise. This situation is viewed as part of a larger trend of weakening democratic institutions and shifting the burden of proof onto citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote, thereby challenging the very authority of the Indian state.
The revelations emerging from West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are disturbing. Of the 82,782 appeals disposed of by SIR tribunals, more than 91 per cent resulted in the restoration of the names that had been excluded from the rolls.
Lakhs of voters excluded by the SIR, across several states, may be found to be entitled to remain on the electoral rolls. Yet, from all accounts, it could be a long time before their names are restored. While there is concern over whether election results may have been affected, I feel there has not been enough outrage over eligible citizens being prevented from exercising their right to vote.
While many western democracies extended voting rights to women and black people after much delay, universal citizenship, democratic government and universal adult franchise arrived together in India. This was a rejection of the British colonial logic, in which property, taxation, education and social status determined who could vote.
From the beginning, the authority of the independent Indian state was tied to the idea that ordinary Indians constituted the sovereign people. Historically, the Indian voter-citizen was projected as being powerful enough to change governments.
The first premise was that all Indian citizens possessed political standing. Electoral rolls were then prepared on an unprecedented scale. The state reached the unlettered and the poor through polling stations in remote settlements. Through the vote, the republic made an otherwise radically unequal population equal.
The Indian citizen does not acquire her political existence because an official can locate her within a chain of documents. On the contrary, electoral administration derives its purpose from a constitutional duty to enable eligible citizens to exercise political sovereignty. The extraordinary significance that elections acquired in Indian political life lies precisely in their expression of formal equality and sovereignty.
The ordinary adult Indian was made politically equal not because the state had certified her social worth, education, wealth, religion or documentary completeness, but because sovereignty was understood ultimately to reside in the people. There may be many institutions that exercise power, but the sovereign is the authority whose decisions cannot be overridden by any other power within the polity. It was the Indian citizen who authorised the Indian state; the state did not get to decide which citizens are worthy of authorising it.
The concerns over SIR do not arise in an institutional vacuum. V-Dem’s 2026 report describes India’s trajectory as involving the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Freedom House’s 2026 assessment says the BJP government has increasingly used institutions against political opponents, and specifically notes growing questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission. The credibility of claims regarding the fairness of Indian elections has rarely faced greater scrutiny.
Unlike other political parties, the BJP’s ideological project has consistently sought to redefine India around a majoritarian conception of nationhood. The exclusion of minorities is central to this vision rather than merely a matter of political opportunism. The use of fear and suspicion has, over time, shifted the burden on existing voters to prove that they deserve to remain on the electoral rolls. That reverses the founding presumption of Indian democracy. Administrative procedures have multiplied, elections continue and courts hold hearings, but the voter-citizen risks becoming less capable of exercising the sovereign power that allows people to restrict the authority of those who control the executive.
The SIR, therefore, is not merely about whether an electoral exercise gives an unfair advantage to one political party. By taking away the sovereign power of the Indian voter-citizen, it is tampering with the very foundation on which the authority of the democratic Indian state rests.
The writer is a member of the Rajya Sabha from the RJD.