The Lift Line
“In a democracy, the Opposition is best placed to amplify their voice but it should not lose sight of the fact that this issue transcends party lines, it does not belong to any one party.” (The Indian Express, editorial)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
This unsigned editorial in The Indian Express, published on 10 October 2026, takes up the dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) is set to return to Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Its argument cuts three ways. It accepts that the rolls need cleaning. It is sharply critical of the way Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has run the Commission. And it faults the main Opposition party for how it has framed the issue. The question it wants kept at the centre is simple: is every eligible citizen counted?
For background, we covered the Commission and the SIR in our editorials on the objections recorded inside the multi-member Commission, the SIR as an obstacle race for universal adult franchise, untying the knots in the SIR and Form 6 and the removal of the CEC under Article 324(5). The right to protest at Jantar Mantar is in our editorial on Jantar Mantar and the right to protest. This piece adds the new angle: why the right to be counted is not a party issue, and what the law says about revising rolls without excluding eligible voters.
GS Paper 2: Salient features of the Representation of the People Act; powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies; issues in the functioning of institutions. GS Paper 4: Accountability and answerability in public institutions.
In the news: the Cockroach Janta Party is set to return to Jantar Mantar on 10 October 2026, and The Indian Express argues that the voter’s right to be counted “transcends party lines”.
Background and Context
The editorial’s starting point: institutions under pressure
The paper opens with a claim: “Institutions rarely correct themselves without pressure being brought on them to do so.” It gives three examples, in its own words.
| Example the paper gives | What followed, in the paper’s words |
|---|---|
| The anti-corruption movement of 2011 | It “placed the Lokpal on the statute book” |
| Anger on Delhi streets after the 2012 gangrape | It “rewrote the law” |
| Protests this summer | They “forced a Union minister to resign and the government to set up a panel to reform a broken exam system” (see our report on the minister’s resignation) |
| Now: the SIR | The issue “touches the very heart of the democratic compact”, which the paper defines as the citizen’s right to be counted |
“Voices raised in peaceful protest are the soundtrack of democracy,” the paper writes.
The law on revising electoral rolls
| Provision | What it says |
|---|---|
| Article 324(1) | “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President” is vested in the Election Commission |
| Article 324(5), first proviso | The CEC “shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court” |
| Article 324(5), second proviso | Any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner” |
| Article 326 | Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are on the basis of adult suffrage: every citizen not less than eighteen years of age, and not otherwise disqualified on the ground of “non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice”, “shall be entitled to be registered as a voter” |
| Article 326 as adopted in 1950 | The qualifying age was “twenty-one years” |
| RP Act, 1950, Section 21(2)(b) | The roll “shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the Election Commission” |
| RP Act, 1950, Section 21(3) | The Commission “may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit”; the existing roll continues in force “until the completion of the special revision” |
| Forms | Form 6 to enrol, Form 7 to object to a name, Form 8 to correct an entry |
Note the words. The Act speaks of a “special revision”; “Special Intensive Revision” is the name the Commission has given to the present exercise.
What the Supreme Court has said (background)
| Date | Case | What the Court did |
|---|---|---|
| 13 April 2026 | Mostari Banu v Election Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 638 (CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi) | Used Article 142 to direct that decisions of the appellate tribunals in the West Bengal SIR be given effect through a supplementary roll; held that the mere pendency of appeals does not entitle excluded persons to vote |
| 27 May 2026 | Judgment of a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi (as reported by Bar and Bench) | Upheld the Commission’s power to conduct the SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950, and found it consistent with Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; deletion from the roll “does not ... operate to divest the individual of claims to citizenship” |
The Commission under scrutiny
- The Indian Express report (23 September 2026): Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record to steps taken by the Commission at least 14 times over 10 months.
- The Commission’s reply: an ECI source told IANS that all decisions of the Commission, including the SIR, had been unanimous and approved by both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.
- The CJP’s call: the party has called a protest at Jantar Mantar for 10 October 2026, tied to its demand that the CEC resign.
The Analysis
1. The right to be counted is the core. The paper places the SIR at “the very heart of the democratic compact”. The concern it names runs “From institutional integrity to the individual’s right to vote, from the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls to the manner in which Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has cast a shadow on the institution”. It goes further: the CEC’s conduct makes it “hard to expect a meaningful resolution on his watch”.
2. The clean-up is needed; the method is the problem. This is the editorial’s most useful line for an answer: “The SIR is a much-needed exercise in a sprawling democracy with many moving parts. It is fraught today because the clean-up has also become a cover for deleting voters without due process.” The power itself is not in doubt. Section 21(3) allows a special revision at any time, for reasons to be recorded, and a Bench of the Supreme Court has, as reported, upheld the Commission’s power to run the SIR. The live question is process: whether every deletion comes with notice, a hearing and a way back onto the roll. The Court’s own use of a supplementary roll for persons cleared on appeal shows what such a way back can look like.
3. The paper’s critique of the Opposition’s framing. The editorial argues that Congress leaders, “especially Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi”, have framed the issue through slogans of “stolen elections”, “annulment of SIR” and “going back to the ballot paper”. In the paper’s view, this takes “a powerful issue that cuts across the ideological spectrum” and uses it to explain the party’s own defeats, which it treats as a separate story from the SIR. It also notes that “the Opposition ... played catch-up with the CJP-led mobilisation in June-July”. The editorial does not record the Congress’s reply; read this section as the paper’s argument, not a settled fact.
4. Four calls to act. The paper’s closing paragraph assigns a duty to each actor:
| Actor | What the paper asks of it |
|---|---|
| The CEC | “answerability enforced from the erring and overreaching CEC” |
| The ruling party | To “reflect on the impact of a discredited ECI on its own electoral ambitions” |
| The Supreme Court | “to demand answers from the Commission” |
| Citizens | To assert the “adhikaar”, the right to vote, which the paper calls “constitutionally guaranteed” |
5. A legal point to get right. The paper’s phrase “constitutionally guaranteed” is a political claim more than a settled legal one. Article 326 says a qualified citizen “shall be entitled to be registered as a voter”. The Supreme Court has more often described the right to vote itself as a statutory right, and a judge’s remarks to the contrary in a recent speech were extra-judicial, as an earlier roundup of ours explained. In an answer, write “the right to vote, which flows from Article 326 and the Representation of the People Acts”, and note the debate.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
- Article 324(1): vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls, and of the conduct of elections, in the Election Commission.
- Elections covered by Article 324(1): Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.
- Article 324(5): the CEC is removed only in like manner and on the like grounds as a Supreme Court judge; other Election Commissioners only on the CEC’s recommendation.
- Article 326: adult suffrage; a citizen not less than 18 years of age, not otherwise disqualified, is entitled to be registered as a voter. The 1950 text said 21 years.
- Grounds of disqualification in Article 326: non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, corrupt or illegal practice.
- RP Act, 1950, Section 21(3): the Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision for any constituency or part of one.
- Proviso to Section 21(3): the existing roll stays in force until the special revision is complete.
- Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: cited by the Supreme Court, as reported, when it upheld the SIR.
- Forms: 6 to enrol, 7 to object, 8 to correct.
- Mostari Banu v ECI (2026): Article 142 directions for a supplementary roll in the West Bengal SIR.
⚠️ Watch the trap: Article 326 makes a citizen entitled to be registered as a voter; the Supreme Court has more often called the right to vote statutory, not fundamental. The Act’s term is “special revision”; “Special Intensive Revision” is the Commission’s name for the exercise. The CEC’s removal is like a Supreme Court judge’s; the other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation.
The Debate
| The editorial’s case | The other side |
|---|---|
| The SIR has become “a cover for deleting voters without due process” | A Supreme Court Bench, as reported, upheld the Commission’s power to conduct the SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) |
| The Commission’s conduct under the present CEC has “cast a shadow on the institution” | An ECI source says all the Commission’s decisions, including on the SIR, were unanimous |
| The right to vote is “constitutionally guaranteed” | The Court has more often treated the right to vote as statutory |
| The Opposition’s slogans reduce a cross-party issue to “a loser’s complaint” | Political parties are often the only actors able to mobilise against a perceived wrong; the paper itself says the Opposition “is best placed to amplify” the voter’s voice |
| Pressure from the street makes institutions correct themselves | Street pressure can also polarise an issue that needs a calm, legal fix |
How to Think About This
Split the dispute into three questions and keep them apart.
- Power: does the Commission have the power to revise the rolls this way? Article 324 and Section 21(3) say yes, and the Court, as reported, has agreed.
- Process: is the power exercised fairly? This is where notice, hearing, appeal and re-enrolment come in, and where the editorial says the SIR has gone wrong.
- Politics: who gains from the dispute? The paper’s warning is that if the third question swallows the first two, the voter loses.
For GS4, the editorial is a study in answerability: an independent body is trusted because it explains itself, not merely because the law protects it.
The Way Forward
- Keep the clean-up, fix the process: individual notice before deletion, a reasoned order and a time-bound appeal.
- A way back onto the roll: supplementary rolls for persons cleared on appeal, as the Supreme Court directed in the West Bengal case, and easy re-enrolment through Form 6.
- Open data: publish deletions by constituency and by ground, so that errors can be spotted and challenged.
- An answerable Commission: respond to questions about its internal functioning on the record, before courts and the public.
- Above party lines: treat the right to be counted as every voter’s concern, as the editorial urges, not as one party’s grievance.
Takeaway Box
- The argument: the voter’s right to be counted “transcends party lines”; it “does not belong to any one party”.
- On the SIR: “a much-needed exercise”, but the clean-up “has also become a cover for deleting voters without due process”.
- The law: Article 324(1) (rolls under the Commission), Article 326 (adult suffrage, 18 years), Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 (special revision).
- The courts: a supplementary roll for those cleared on appeal (Mostari Banu, April 2026); the SIR power upheld, as reported, in May 2026.
- The asks: answerability from the CEC, reflection by the ruling party, answers demanded by the Court, and citizens asserting their right.
Sources: The Indian Express, editorial, “It’s about the voter, not the party they vote for”; Constitution of India, Articles 324 and 326 (CLPR, constitutionofindia.net); Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 21 (Indian Kanoon); SCC Online, West Bengal SIR order on voter appeals; Moneylife (Bar and Bench), Supreme Court upholds validity of SIR; Morung Express (IANS), ECI rejects report of dissent; Deccan Chronicle, CJP calls Delhi protest on 10 October
Source: SIR and the Right to Vote: About the Voter, Not the Party — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
