​Juggernaut rolls on: On the third phase of SIR of electoral rolls

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has announced a third phase of its controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, covering 16 States and three Union Territories with a combined electorate of 36.73 crore. Given what transpired in Phase 2 — a staggering net trim of 10.2% in the rolls — it would be prudent for the ECI to make structural changes in how it conducts this third phase, so that the disenfranchisement visible particularly in States such as West Bengal is not repeated. At least, the exercise will not be hurried through because of an impending election. The SIR has produced mass deletions of varying scale across States, with West Bengal’s the most egregious. This was the cumulative result of the ECI’s reliance on faulty software, arbitrary criteria, and methodological flaws, which together led to the removal of a disproportionately higher number of electors from marginalised and minority communities, most notably in West Bengal. Across States, the SIR was marked by the centralisation of data and decision-making in ECI authorities in New Delhi rather than with empowered Electoral Registration Officers in the States; by booth rationalisation conducted in parallel with enumeration rather than after it, which obscured the scale of deletions and made it harder for electors to verify their inclusion; and by software errors that deleted entire sets of duplicate names rather than only the excess entries. Most fundamental of all is the design of the enumeration process itself, which places the onus on electors rather than on ECI officials to establish eligibility on the rolls. The aggregate result of these flaws is visible in the data: gender-ratio drops in the electorate across nearly every State where the SIR was conducted — Tamil Nadu being the notable exception — and mismatches with officially estimated elector-population ratios.

Yet, none of this has moved the ECI to change course. That the lessons of Bihar were not absorbed in Phase 2 itself raises the suspicion that the insouciance is by design. Worryingly, the Supreme Court of India has chosen managerial supervision over adjudication, directing the acceptance of more identity documents, deploying judicial officers, even as the underlying questions on Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act and on the shifting of the burden of proof to electors remain unresolved. As Phase 3 commences, the burden now falls on political parties and civil society to sensitise electors to ensure that their enumeration forms are properly processed. The ECI should prioritise universal adult franchise over a method that places the onus of remaining on the rolls upon electors themselves.