Lucknow: Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa on Tuesday questioned the fairness and very framework of the SIR of electoral rolls, arguing that the Election Commission must not burden people with proving their citizenship — a responsibility that the constitution has historically placed on the state machinery, not individual voters.Speaking about the legal and procedural framework in discussion with Prof Nivedita Menon and Prof Nadeem Hasnain at an event, hosted by Saajhi Duniya in the city, Lavasa said that while the term ‘Special Intensive Revision’ does not exist in the Representation of the People Act or the Electoral Registration Rules, the ECI has the authority under Rule 23 to adopt processes necessary for revising electoral rolls.
Lavasa emphasised that because the process is currently underway in 12 states and UTs, it is premature to draw conclusions about its outcomes. However, he pointed to the example of Bihar — where the exercise has been completed — to illustrate broader concerns. He said the exercise must be judged on three factors: its purpose, the principles guiding it, and the procedure adopted.According to Lavasa, the ECI’s stated intention — issued through its June 24, 2025 notification — was uncontroversial. “The commission had declared that no eligible voter should be excluded from the electoral roll, and no ineligible person should remain in it. For this purpose, there can be no disagreement,” he said.He stressed that eligibility is defined strictly by article 326 of the constitution, which requires only four criteria: Indian citizenship, age 18 or above, soundness of mind as determined by a competent medical board, and absence of disqualification under any law. “Beyond these four, there is no other eligibility requirement,” Lavasa said.Citing Bihar’s revision, he noted that of the 7.89 crore names on the rolls, 66 lakh were removed at the draft stage. Of these, 46 lakh had permanently migrated, about 21–22 lakh were deceased, and others were duplicate entries. “None of these relate to eligibility under Article 326,” Lavasa emphasised, adding that final numbers on ineligibility-based deletions have not yet been published.Lavasa stressed that India’s system has historically been state-driven: the responsibility or burden to enrol every eligible citizen lies with the ECI and state machinery, not with the individual citizen. This, he said, is a ‘basic difference’ from countries like the US, where individuals must apply. This principle ensured a healthy electors-to-population ratio of over 99% since the first rolls in 1951-52, prepared meticulously without modern documentation.
