The Election Commission of India (ECI)’s SIR of electoral rolls, being held in 12 States and Union Territories (UT), demands urgent judicial scrutiny due to its implementation and its base methodology. While the Supreme Court continues to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SIR process pioneered in Bihar, the same flawed approach is being persisted with in other States. Voters are to fill enumeration forms delivered by Booth Level Officers (BLO) and match their details against electoral rolls from 2002-2005. Though data from Bihar suggest that the process did not dramatically alter election outcomes, it saw a sharp decline in the gender ratio of the electorate. Other localised distortions also warrant concern. The ECI claims that enumeration forms have been delivered to most electors in the 12 States and UTs, but genuine voters continue to scramble for forms, and confusion persists about the documentation required for enrolment on the draft rolls due next month. The guideline mandating that BLOs visit households appears to be only on paper. The Gauhati High Court, in Dr. Manmohan Singh (1999), interpreted requirements in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 expansively: an ordinary resident is a habitual resident with the intention to dwell permanently — whom any reasonable person would accept as a resident of that place. Operating from this principle, the ECI and the judiciary have historically presumed that any resident adult was, by default, a valid voter.
The SIR inverts this presumption. Regardless of having voted earlier, every elector must now prove their legitimacy against old records or documents listed by the ECI. This shifting of the burden, from the state to citizens, risks major disenfranchisement, especially married women and migrants, as in Bihar. As courts have recognised, a strict interpretation of the “ordinarily resident” requirement can vitiate the democratic process. During hearings on Bihar, the Court focused on implementation, placing the onus of protecting genuine voters on party representatives and legal volunteers. It did not examine whether the enumeration form methodology passes constitutional muster, nor did it address persisting inaccuracies in revised rolls — likely a consequence of harried BLOs leaving errors uncorrected. The ECI could have chosen a more patient door-to-door verification to ensure universal adult franchise, complemented by technology-driven deduplication. Instead, it doubled down on an approach that prioritises “purifying” the rolls over protecting the franchise. As the SIR expands, the Court must move beyond procedural oversight to examine the process’s constitutional foundations. What is essential is a clear directive restoring the burden of accurate enrolment to the ECI rather than leaving citizens to prove that they belong on rolls they have been on for years.