S.Y. Quraishi on SIR: Electoral Rolls, Citizenship, and the Limits of Judicial Safeguards

Indian Express | Column by S.Y. Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner | May 29, 2026

S.Y. Quraishi — CEC from July 30, 2010 to June 10, 2012 — critiques the Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 validation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His central argument: the SIR exceeds the statutory scope of “revision” under the RP Act, 1950, and risks disenfranchising vulnerable, documentation-poor voters. While the Court has carefully distinguished electoral exclusion from citizenship determination, the practical safeguards of judicial review remain inaccessible to the very citizens most at risk.

The Argument in One Line

The constitutional design of universal franchise rests on automatic inclusion of citizens once eligible, not on the selective exclusion through document-driven scrutiny — and the SC’s procedural gestures cannot redeem an exercise that has crossed into citizenship-screening territory.

Why a Former CEC’s Critique Matters

Quraishi was the 17th Chief Election Commissioner (2010-2012). His tenure included:

• 2011 Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Assam, Puducherry.
• 2012 UP, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa, Manipur Assembly polls.
• Authored An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election (2014).
• Long-standing advocate of proactive ECI reforms — voter education, paid news regulation, party finance transparency.

When a former CEC says the SIR has exceeded its statutory mandate, the institutional voice carries weight beyond constitutional debate.

The Statutory Scope of “Revision” — The Core Argument

Quraishi’s critique: the SIR being conducted in Bihar (2025-26) goes beyond “intensive revision” into enumeration-style scrutiny — closer to a citizenship audit than a roll update. The statutory text does not anticipate this depth of inquiry.

The Five Specific Concerns

1. Document Threshold Mismatch

The ECI’s de facto document requirement (birth certificate, parents’ rolls, passport) excludes the documentation realities of:

• Rural poor without birth certificates.
• Internal migrants without parental documentation in the migration state.
• Religious minorities in border districts where suspicion is institutionalised.
• Women lacking documents in their natal name.
• Tribals in Schedule V areas with limited civil registration.

2. Onus of Proof Reversed

In a normal voter-registration challenge, the state must prove ineligibility. In SIR, the voter must prove eligibility — a reversal that the statute does not authorise.

3. Time and Geography Asymmetry

The SIR’s timelines (typically 3-6 months) and verification windows are calibrated for average-density urban populations — not for:

• Tribal hamlets in remote districts.
• Migrant workers absent during verification.
• Hospital patients, elderly, disabled.

4. ECI as Citizenship Examiner

Quraishi argues — like the Hindu editorial — that the SC’s acknowledgement of ECI’s citizenship-examination power crosses an institutional line. The ECI’s mandate is electoral; the citizenship determination authority is MHA under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

5. Judicial Review — Theoretical Not Practical

The SC’s offered remedy — appeal to High Courts — is theoretical for the affected voter. Filing an Article 226 writ:

• Costs ₹10,000-50,000 in fees.
• Requires legal assistance the indigent lack.
• Takes months/years; the election is decided meanwhile.
• The Right to Vote (PUCL, 2003) is constitutional but not fundamental — so HC remedies are discretionary.

What the SC Could Have Done — But Did Not

The Comparative — Other Countries’ Reform Approaches

The Indian SIR is positioned closer to the US — putting the burden on the voter — and far from the German model of state-led inclusion.

Wider Significance

• Constitutional consistency — universal franchise (Article 326) requires consistent application.
• Institutional autonomy — ECI’s autonomy must be exercised within statutory boundaries.
• Democratic backsliding signal — voter-roll purges are a well-documented step in democratic erosion globally.
• Comparative caution — even the UK’s well-resourced state struggled with voter exclusion after photo ID rollout.

What Quraishi Proposes

What This Editorial Adds to the SIR Debate

The Quraishi voice adds institutional credibility to the critique — it’s not partisan; it’s from inside the ECI’s own intellectual tradition.

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper 2 — Polity & Governance:

• Structure, organization and functioning of the Election Commission of India.
• Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.
• Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies.

Analytical hooks for Mains:

• The constitutional scope of “revision” vs “enumeration”.
• ECI’s expanding role vs MHA’s citizenship mandate — institutional boundaries.
• Voter document requirements — exclusion vs purity trade-off.

Facts Corner

• Author: S.Y. Quraishi — 17th Chief Election Commissioner, July 30, 2010 – June 10, 2012.
• Book: An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election (2014).
• SIR statutory anchor: Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Citizenship Authority: MHA under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
• SC SIR verdict date: May 27, 2026; Bench: CJI Surya Kant + Joymalya Bagchi + Vipul M. Pancholi.
• ECI Appointment Act, 2023: removed CJI from the appointment panel — replaced with a Cabinet Minister.
• Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023): SC originally directed a CEC+CJI+LoP panel; 2023 Act diluted this.
• Bihar SIR cycle: Started 2025 ahead of Bihar Assembly elections.
• PUCL v. UoI (2003): Right to vote — constitutional, not fundamental; Art 21 due process applies.
• 17.32 crore voters in the first general election (1951-52).

Editorial source: Indian Express, May 29, 2026 | Cross-link: Hindu SIR editorial | Daily: May 27 SC SIR verdict

Source: S.Y. Quraishi on SIR: Electoral Rolls, Citizenship, and the Limits of Judicial Safeguards — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis