Obstacle Race: SIR and Universal Adult Franchise

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Hindu

The Lift Line

“The exercise, as it is being carried out now, is an obstacle not only to universal adult franchise but also to electoral democracy itself.”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

The Hindu’s lead editorial of 3 October 2026 responds to protests on 2 October demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. It is a sharp critique; its figures are the paper’s and should be quoted as such. The topic ties Article 326, Article 324, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the working of a multi-member constitutional body.

GS Paper 2: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act; appointment to various constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies.

Background and Context

The legal base.

Provision	What it says
Article 324	Superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls vests in the Election Commission
Article 325	One general roll for every constituency; no one excluded on religion, race, caste or sex
Article 326	Adult suffrage: every citizen aged 18 or above, not otherwise disqualified
RP Act, 1950, Section 21	Rolls are revised before elections; the ECI may direct a special revision at any time
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960	Prescribe the forms: Form 6 (inclusion), Form 7 (objection or deletion), Form 8 (correction)

The SIR so far. The revision began in Bihar in 2025 and was extended in phases. For background, the Supreme Court upheld it on 27 May 2026 (Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi), holding roll accuracy a duty under Article 324 while requiring procedural safeguards. In September, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record to decisions taken in the Commission’s name. In a letter reported on 2 October, the ECI asked Chief Electoral Officers to compare pre-SIR and current rolls and have Booth Level Officers re-enrol eligible electors left out, within a month, through Form 6.

The Analysis

1. Deletion first, verification later. The enumeration puts the onus on electors to prove eligibility, the editorial says, so many are deleted first and checked later.

2. Easy out, hard back in. Mass deletion requests are quick to file and process, while a deleted elector can return only as a fresh applicant, and only on discovering the deletion.

3. Rising numbers. About 13.4 crore electors removed from draft rolls across 30 States and UTs (about 14%): 8.3% in Bihar, 12.9% across Phase 2’s 12 States and UTs, and 17% in Phase 3, by the editorial’s count. A new exclusion criterion, “logical discrepancies”, first used in West Bengal, has been extended.

4. Process changed without rules. Form 6 was altered, without amending the rules, to ask about the applicant’s or parents’ or grandparents’ presence on the last SIR roll. In West Bengal, 16.1 lakh deletion requests targeted electors already cleared by judicial officers.

5. Accountability of the whole Commission. The ECI’s order to restore deleted voters is “an implicit admission”, the paper says, and the two Election Commissioners, as a majority, could have overruled the CEC.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Constitution and law:

• Article 326: adult suffrage at 18 (lowered from 21 by the 61st Amendment, 1988).
• Article 324: ECI’s superintendence of rolls and elections; Article 325: one general roll per constituency.
• RP Act, 1950, Section 21: preparation and revision of rolls, including a special revision.
• Form 6: inclusion; Form 7: objection to inclusion or deletion; Form 8: correction or shifting.

The SIR (the editorial’s figures):

• About 13.4 crore electors removed from draft rolls in 30 States and UTs, about 14%.
• Bihar 8.3%; Phase 2 12.9% (12 States and UTs); Phase 3 17%.
• Background ruling: the Supreme Court upheld the SIR on 27 May 2026.

⚠️ Watch the trap: Electoral rolls are prepared under the Representation of the People Act, 1950; the conduct of elections is governed by the 1951 Act. Students often swap them.

The Debate

For the editorial’s view. In a democracy the cost of a wrongful exclusion is a lost vote that cannot be restored after polling day, so the burden should sit with the state, not the voter.

The other side. Rolls with dead, shifted and duplicate entries are a real problem; the Supreme Court found the exercise lawful; and claims, objections and the re-enrolment drive offer remedies.

The balanced verdict. Keep periodic verification but make it state-led, notice-based and reversible, and let the full Commission decide procedural changes.

How to Think About This

Ask who bears the burden. In any verification drive, the design choice is whether the citizen proves eligibility or the state proves ineligibility. That single choice decides who gets excluded, which is the analytical core of any answer on the SIR.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Thesis: the SIR, as run now, is an obstacle to universal adult franchise.
• Numbers (editorial’s): about 13.4 crore removed (14%); phase-wise 8.3%, 12.9%, 17%.
• Law: Articles 324, 325, 326; RP Act 1950, Section 21; Forms 6, 7, 8.
• Court: SIR upheld 27 May 2026, with safeguards.

Sources: The Hindu, Election Commission of India, Constitution of India

Source: Obstacle Race: SIR and Universal Adult Franchise — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

The Hindu argues that the Special Intensive Revision, meant to clean the rolls, has become serial disenfranchisement, because it puts the burden of proving eligibility on electors and makes deletion easy and restoration hard; the Election Commission’s corrective steps are an implicit admission of that.

✓ Supporting

• Nearly 13.4 crore electors were removed from the draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, about 14% of the pre-revision electorate, and each phase deleted more than the last: 8.3% in Bihar, 12.9% in Phase 2 and 17% in Phase 3, the editorial says.
• Deleted electors can return only as fresh applicants, and only if they discover they were struck off; Form 6 was altered, without amending the rules, to ask whether applicants or their parents or grandparents were on the last SIR roll.
• In West Bengal, 16.1 lakh deletion requests were filed against electors whom judicial officers had already cleared, helped by a centralised roll database in New Delhi.
• Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the changes; as a majority of the Commission, the editorial argues, they could have overruled the Chief Election Commissioner.

⚠ Counter

The Election Commission’s position, not presented in the editorial: Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 empower it to revise rolls; inflated rolls with dead, shifted and duplicate entries undermine elections; the Supreme Court upheld the SIR on 27 May 2026; and claims and objections phases plus the new re-enrolment drive give excluded electors a remedy.

→ Way Forward

The editorial calls the exercise, as now carried out, an obstacle to universal adult franchise and faults the two Election Commissioners for not overruling the CEC. Ujiyari’s synthesis: put the burden of verification on the state using its own databases, give notice and a hearing before any deletion, publish deletion lists by reason, make restoration automatic where a deletion is found wrong, and amend rules before changing forms.