India’s electoral process stands as one of the most gigantic & enduring
democratic enterprises in history of democratic institutions. With nearly a
billion voters, the scale and complexity of its conduct put the combined
electoral operations of nearly 90 nations, to an embarrassment & forced
introspection. The Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutionally
enshrined body, bears the solemn responsibility of regulating this awe
inspiring colossal democratic pilgrimage. Despite the odds-geographical,
political, and social, it has sailed above the peripheral levels of oceanic
water.
From the southernmost Indira Point at Andaman Nicobar to the
snowbound heights of Tashigang in Himachal Pradesh, the world’s highest
polling station perched at 15,256 feet; the electoral grid extends its reach
to the most remote corners of the country in all four directions. The
fineness & perfection with commitment can be gauged from the fact that
the EC established Polling booth even for a solitary priest in the heart of
the Gir forest at Gujrat. They do not think twice in establishing polling
booths in areas with temperature ranging from sub-zero -35°C in the
Himalayas to blistering 52°C in the Thar. Hundreds of trains, aircraft,
boats, mules, and porters form part of a mind-boggling logistical
choreography. Each polling station is furnished with EVMs, VVPATs, PPE
kits, sealed materials, signage, and meticulously updated electoral rolls as
self-sustained body.
The EC takes charge of virtually the administration of the country with the
District administration reporting to the Election Commission. Credit goes
to TN Sheshan, versatile EC who brought in cataclysmic changes in the
electoral exercises in the country & who made exceptional beginning by
empowering the Election Commission beyond imaginations. Day
transforms into a national festival—vibrant, energetic, and symbolically
sacred. Media houses provide round-the-clock coverage, with lakhs of
police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) are deployed to ensure
peace, security, and sanctity. The reliability, resilience, and operational
efficiency of this machinery have few parallels in the democratic world.
When compared to the procedural disarray and delayed results often
witnessed in countries like the United States, India's electoral conduct
remains a marvel of precision.
Yet, beneath this resounding applause for logistical triumph, murmurs of
doubt and criticism persist largely from opposition parties and political
commentators. Ironically, when electoral outcomes tilt in their favour,
they remain stunningly & mysteriously silent on successful
accomplishment of electoral exercise. However, when results go
otherwise, their narrative swiftly transforms as outright critique
demanding de legitimization, even extending threats of abstaining from
the democratic process altogether. A telling example of this oppositional
posturing is their vehement criticism of the Special Intensive Revision
(SIR) exercise. Constitutionally mandated, this revision seeks to ensure
that only eligible Indian citizens are enrolled on the voter list. The Special
Intensive Revision (SIR) is a targeted revision of electoral rolls
undertaken by the Election Commission of India to correct anomalies,
remove ineligible entries, and enrol eligible voters who may have been
omitted. Unlike the routine annual summary revisions, SIR is initiated in
specific areas or across select constituencies when:
There is credible evidence of large-scale inaccuracies, duplications, or
non-citizens being enrolled; Demographic shifts have occurred due to
migration, settlement, or urbanization; Electoral rolls are suspected to
include illegal immigrants or deceased voters.
The Election Commission, though constitutionally empowered and
structurally independent, has been subjected to relentless scepticism.
Parties like Congress, RJD, AAP etc have repeatedly accused it of selective
application of the Model Code of Conduct and of leaning towards the
ruling establishment. They question its neutrality, suggesting that
procedural excellence is being used to veil institutional bias. However, a
closer examination reveals a different reality. The ECI led by a three-
member panel has consistently extended open invitations to all
stakeholders, including opposition leaders, to witness and audit the
functioning of the electoral apparatus first hand. These invitations are
seldom accepted. One suspects this reluctance is strategic: participation
might deplete their arsenal of political accusations.
Ironically, on polling days, hundreds of political agents from all major
parties remained physically present at booths across the country. And
yet, the number of credible complaints received by the Election
Commission regarding irregularities is strikingly low. Ground-level
mechanisms of checks and balances work efficiently. But instead of
engaging constructively with these processes or challenging the
government through legislative performance and public outreach, sections
of the opposition prefer rhetorical theatrics—misdirected energy aimed
more at narrative-building than at democratic reform.
Along the Bangladesh border, voter rolls in certain constituencies have
long been suspected of containing ineligible names, including illegal
immigrants. These entries, often left unchecked, are believed to
constitute a reliable support base for specific political parties. However,
when the Election Commission undertakes revision exercises—such as
deletions based on verified ineligibility—these very parties raise alarms,
accusing the Commission of disenfranchisement. This contradiction lays
bare a strategy rooted less in principled democratic concern and more in
selective outrage—where electoral integrity is invoked only when
politically expedient, and ignored when it serves partisan advantage.
This persistent clamour, often unanchored from facts, risks eroding public
trust not just in the Election Commission, but in the democratic ethos
itself. Institutional scepticism, if born of evidence, is a democratic virtue.
But when driven by convenience and electoral arithmetic, it becomes
corrosive. It is incomprehensible that if INDI bloc wins in Karnataka,
Himachal Pradesh & Telangana, the electoral lists & related exercise are
not objected to however when the opposition loses, they shamelessly &
relentlessly shout from roof tops about everything wrong with the
electoral rolls, methodology & EVMs.
The opponents express fear that SIR is not going to be limited to Bihar
but will stretch itself to the entire length & breadth of the country. Most of
them are unable to convince as to how Universal adult franchise is
endangered due to Special Intensive revision. ARTICLE 326, constitution
of India stipulates that that every person who is citizen of India shall be
entitled as voter, & not less than twenty-one of age. Article 5 stipulates
that the citizenship shall be determined by either birth and residence. The
critique of revision talks of principles & theories revolving on
encompassment, placing the onus of proving non citizenship on the EC
(presumption of citizenship) instead of individual. Little concern they have
of mass scale unauthorized & illegal migration of nationals of Bangladesh
& Burma. Elections are not merely about counting votes; they are about
cultivating trust. The integrity of a democracy lies not just in the precision
of its polling machines but in the belief that every vote is equal, sacred,
and meaningful. India’s electoral process, while a stunning logistical
phenomenon, must also remain a moral beacon, above suspicion, beyond
compromise.
The EC says it will adhere to Article 326 of the Constitution and Section
16 of the Representation of the People Act. The Election Commission
must, therefore, not only uphold the highest standards of efficiency but
also actively preserve its image of impartiality. Equally, the opposition
must rise above petty politics and engage with institutions in good faith,
challenging when warranted, but cooperating when necessary. For
democracy to thrive, participation must be responsible, and dissent must
be informed.
Intensive ground verification is deemed necessary to uphold electoral
integrity. Far from being exclusionary, the process is inclusive and
corrective aimed at cleansing the rolls of errors, duplications, and non-
citizens. Yet, the opposition portrays it as a sinister disenfranchisement
campaign, projecting fear and victimhood where diligence and duty exist.
This misrepresentation is less a matter of principle and more a reflection
of frustration & political opportunism.
The SC bench emphasized that the original list of 11 documents issued on
June 24 was illustrative, not exhaustive, and inclusivity demands broader
documentation options. It clarified that this wasn't a binding
directive—you still must meet ECI’s criteria, but the door is open to these
additional documents. The Court declined to suspend the SIR process,
stating it couldn’t pre-emptively block a constitutional function.
However, it flagged three issues that will undergo scrutiny on July 28:
ECI’s legal authority to perform this revision under Section 21(3) of the
Representation of the People Act,
The process and methodology—including the sudden requirement of
documentary proof even for long-time voters,
The short timeline ahead of Bihar’s Assembly elections in November,
questioning its feasibility.
A counter‑affidavit by the ECI is due by July 21 and the next hearing is
scheduled for July 28—before draft rolls are set for August 1.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) piloted by Prashant
Bhushan, filed petition challenging EC’s order of June 24,2025. The last
such revision happened in 2003. As per sceptics there is no credible
evidence to suggest a large presence of such individuals in Bihar, unlike in
border states like Assam.
As per Opposition, there is no indication that a significant number of
foreign nationals from Bangla Desh, Rohingyas have infiltrated the mass
population of Bihar who cannot be deemed citizens prima facie without
checks & verifications through special Intensive Revision (SIR) of
electoral rolls in Bihar.
At the centre of the controversy lies the Election Commission’s mandate
that anyone not listed in the 2003 electoral rolls must now furnish one of
eleven specified documents to establish their eligibility to vote.
In the final reckoning, It is neither Association for Democratic Reforms
(ADR), Prasant, Moitra etc or the Ruling dispensation but the
Constitutional Organizations & the people who shall feel, sense & judge
the objective of Special Intensive Revision. Every nation maintains writ to
verify who is the citizen of India. India’s electoral machinery will not be
judged merely by how well it runs but by how deeply it commands the
confidence of its people. That trust is not built in headlines or manifestos.
It is earned in the quiet conviction that every eligible vote matters, and
every institution protects it.
*Dr (Lt Col) Atul Tyagi (Retd), Advocate, Memebr, Supreme Court Bar Association.
Author is ex-servicemen voluntarily retired and now engaged as
Practicing Advocate & Faculty in Practice in Universities like
Beneett University, Times Group. He has many papers on legal,
social & political aspects published in Online & offline
newspapers.
