Large-scale deletions of voters from electoral rolls is a matter of great concern. The cumbersome procedure for submission of enumeration forms and non-acceptance by block-level officers (BLOs), if voters’ or their parents’ names do not appear in the electoral rolls of 2002, amounts to harassment. Either to go through it, or lose voting right is the succinct and clear-cut message.Subjecting existing voters to the special intensive revision (SIR) rigmarole is anachronistic to the laws on rolls revision. More so, in the light of the Constitution Bench verdict in Anoop Bernwal’s case by the Supreme Court, which categorically held that all voters on the electoral roll have “right to vote” in the constituency where their names are entered under Section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.They can be denied their rights only if anyone becomes disqualified, after registration under section 16(2) of the 1950 Act, on incurring any disqualification. If the competent authority finds someone not a ‘Citizen of India’, then action can be initiated. However, that is not to indulge in this kind of indirect device. The Supreme Court even observes that the right to vote may not be a statutory right but it is a constitutional right. ECI records are a testimony against the SIRA perusal of the Election Commission of India’s records would establish that the SIR proceeds on a misconceived presumption of similarity between “Special Revision of an intensive nature” in 2002-03 with the present and ongoing SIR. They are diagonally opposite to each other in their methodology. Even in 2002-03, ‘House to House’ verification was conducted. Why, then, is there now a need to first map the 2002 rolls and then submit an enumeration form with parental history?In 2001, the “Revision of Electoral Rolls of Intensive nature” was with reference to January 1, 2002, as the qualifying date. In the first phase, 20 states and Union territories (UTs) were to be covered, whereas the remaining states/UTs were in the second phase, conducted in 2003 – all by undertaking ‘house to house’ verification.The prime objective was “intensive revision” of electoral rolls. The second objective, perhaps more important, to synchronise the electoral rolls with the “Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC)” programme, started in 1994. In May 2001, the scheme was revised and detailed guidelines issued. The electoral cards were to be multi-purpose and for the uniformity of identification. During the “Special Revision of Intensive nature”, all eligible persons, upon attaining the requisite age on the qualifying date, were to be included as per law. They were to submit an application under Form-6, a statutory performa in vogue. This has not been amended so far, but as reported by the media, “EC changes Form 6 has been voters without amendment to rules” .Commencing preparation of rolls at the behest of the Constituent Assembly, after house-to-house enquiry, the parliament enacted RP Act 1950 and framed the Rules. The latest amendment to it was in 2022, when “Registration of Electors Rules” (RER) was amended to include “Forms for lodging claims and objections and for correction of electoral rolls”, effective from August 1, 2022. Neither the SIR nor enumeration forms were part of these amended Rules.Also read: Why SIR is Not a One Off, But An Act With Consequences Down the AgesThe SIR treats January 1, 2003, the qualifying date, as probative evidence for eligibility, which can’t be sustained in the teeth of The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, under which a person becomes eligible for registration as a voter on attaining 18 years of age on any of four qualifying dates: January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 every year. It is an irrational and illogical move. The qualifying date in 1950 was March 1, which was changed to January 1 in 1958, and later to April 1 only for 1989. The latest amendment came in 2021 when four dates in a single calendar year were prescribed. The SIR, thus, is inherently erroneous. Clearly, even ECI records are a testimony against SIR as they reveal a duly verified list of 96.88 crore voters across the country, after house-to-house verification by BLOs. An exercise was undertaken pursuant to ECI order dated May 29, 2023, ahead of the general election of 2024, to conduct “Intensive Special Summary Revision 2024”, in exercise of powers under Article 324 read with Section 21 of RP Act 1950. Simultaneously, names of 1,65,76,654 voters were deleted as part of a comprehensive cleanup. The breakup of deleted voters included, 67,82,642 as dead; 75,11,128 having permanently shifted/ absentees, 22,05,68 found to be duplicates. This too was for “transparency, purity, health and inclusivity” of the electoral rolls, as is the main objective of current SIR, and was completed on February 8, 2024, in close proximity of Bihar SIR order dated June 24, 2024. No extraordinary situationGujarat violence had created an extraordinary situation to prepare electoral rolls, as people were shifted to relief camps. The villages were emptied and the assembly constituencies were partially/wholly abundant neither identifiable nor the voters were available. The state government wanted elections to be held immediately, as the Assembly was dissolved. The ECI officials visited Gujarat and found the situation not conducive to hold elections, and declined to hold elections before November/December, 2002, after a thorough verification and revision of electoral rolls. The ground realities incapacitated ECI to hold elections, despite being under an obligation. Accurate and proper rolls were essentially required and without actual and updated rolls, it was not possible. The Supreme Court, while answering the Presidential reference, referred to a situation that may be created by “act of God” like earthquakes, floods and such like other situations, in which the ECI has to act appropriately. The Gujarat violence of 2002 was certainly not an “act of God” but man made. Nonetheless, the situation was beyond the control of ECI, since unless the rolls were prepared and revised based on the available data and door to door enquiries to establish accurate rolls, the elections were impossible – an extraordinary situation for ECI to meet. Also read: From ‘Absent’ Voter to Suspected Citizen: The Human Cost of SIRUnlike the Gujarat demographic change due to rapid urbanisation and migration of voters, shifting from place to place is a common phenomenon for decades. It doesn’t create an extraordinary situation but since a person can’t be Ordinary Residence at two places necessary deletions can be done during regular revision but it doesn’t warrant SIR. It is a duty assigned to BLOs and equally Party BLAs to update the rolls. If this is the criteria, every year an SIR would be required.Harassing millions of Indian citizens on electoral rolls, who according to ECI’s own figures of 2024 data are 96.88 crores, is rather atrocious, more so when determination of citizenship is not within their domain. The Supreme Court has laid down that for existing voters on electoral rolls, there is a presumption of validity of citizenship. The ECI can rebut it and the onus is on them but not by SIR methodology. The only way is to be disqualified under section 16(1) of the 1950 Act. It is expected that the constitutional body will proceed as per law.K.C. Mittal is a senior advocate. He is the former president, Delhi High Court Bar Association, and former Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi.