Context

• The Supreme Court began hearing petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, raising constitutional and procedural concerns ahead of the upcoming assembly polls.

About Special Intensive Revision

• A Special Intensive Revision involves door-to-door verification of electoral rolls through house-to-house enumeration.
• It is Conducted under Section 21(3) of the RPA act 1950, and Article 324 of the Constitution, empowering ECI for electoral roll supervision.
• It is of hybrid nature which combines features of both intensive and summary revisions, requiring additional documentation in selected cases.

Type of Electoral Revision in India

• An intensive revision involves preparing fresh electoral rolls through house-to-house visits, recording eligible voters as of a set date. 
• This is done when existing rolls are outdated or inaccurate, usually before major elections or after constituency changes. 
• In contrast, a summary revision is a regular annual update where draft rolls are published, and citizens can request additions, deletions, or corrections without home visits. 
• A special revision occurs in exceptional situations like missed areas, major errors, or legal or political needs. 
• It may follow either summary or intensive methods, depending on what is required to maintain accurate and inclusive voter lists.

Why is Special Intensive Revision needed

• Rapid migration, urbanisation, and dual enrolment have inflated electoral rolls (ECI, 2025) has led to duplicate entries.
• Accusations of voter roll manipulation in states like Maharashtra necessitated re-verification 
• Bihar’s last SIR was in 2003; outdated records can compromise electoral integrity leading to long gap since last Special Intensive Revision.
• SIR seeks to enhance voter roll credibility before high-stakes elections, especially in politically sensitive states to ensure transparency.

History and Purpose of SIR

• Since Independence, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has conducted intensive revisions of electoral rolls multiple times — in 1952–56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983–84, 1987–89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
• Early Focus – The first revisions aimed to correct serious flaws in the rolls used for the 1951–52 Lok Sabha election, caused by public inexperience, administrative gaps, and the absence of a formal electoral law. 
• A notable issue was the mass exclusion of women, many of whom did not share their names with officials.

Understanding the working of SIR process

• BLOs distribute pre-filled forms to each household with voter details and seek updated documents.
• Voters, especially those enrolled after 2003, must now submit documents like birth certificates or parents’ proof.
• Electoral Registration Officers decide on inclusion/deletion, with powers to refer doubtful cases under Citizenship Act 1955
• The entire revision is expected to be completed by July 25, just months ahead of the Assembly elections.

Other Trends

• Phased Approach – To improve accuracy, the ECI adopted a phased revision strategy — covering sections of each state yearly before major elections.
• Changing Priorities Over Time – By the 1980s, focus shifted toward preventing ineligible entries, especially foreign nationals. 
• Border states often reported such concerns, prompting the ECI to issue guidelines stressing that no name could be removed without due process, placing the burden of proof on the objector.
• Role of EPIC – In 1993 and 1995, intensive revisions helped introduce Elector’s Photo Identity Cards (EPIC), although that wasn’t their main purpose.
• Shift to Summary Revisions – As voter lists improved and costs grew, the ECI made summary revisions the norm.

Conclusion

• The Bihar SIR presents a complex intersection of constitutional powers, voter rights, and administrative discretion. While electoral roll accuracy is critical, due process and citizen dignity must remain central. A balanced, transparent, and inclusive approach is vital for upholding democratic integrity.