‘SIR Is Lawful,’ says the Supreme Court

But Who Protects the Voter’s Right?

Andhra Pradesh’s 44.89 lakh flagged entries raise questions about verification, due process, and the duties of Booth Level Officers

The legal validity of Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the Election Commission of India’s constitutional responsibility to protect every eligible citizen’s right to vote, and the accuracy of the figures reported for Andhra Pradesh. The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. But does the authority to revise electoral rolls diminish the duty to protect every eligible voter’s right to be registered? When nearly 44.90 lakh entries in Andhra Pradesh were flagged at the enumeration stage, were all cases properly verified? What responsibility rests on Booth Level Officers to ensure that eligible citizens are not left out? Electoral-roll accuracy is essential to free and fair elections. So is the inclusion of every eligible voter. Both responsibilities must be fulfilled together.

Can the Chief Election Commissioner or the Union Government justify the exercise?

The Election Commission can justify a comprehensive revision by demonstrating that it has a lawful purpose, reliable verification procedures, adequate safeguards, and an effective mechanism for correcting errors. It should also explain the reasons for the large number of entries initially flagged and publish sufficiently detailed information about the outcome of verification and objections. The Union Government, for its part, cannot substitute a general defence of SIR for the Election Commission’s specific responsibility to administer the electoral rolls lawfully. The Election Commission is a constitutional authority, and the accountability of each institution must be assessed within its own legal role.

The decisive questions are these:

1. How many of the 44,89,512 flagged entries were ultimately confirmed as legally deletable?
2. How many eligible electors were restored following notices, claims and objections?
3. In how many cases was an elector classified as absent or untraceable without adequate verification?
4. What remedies were available to electors who were wrongly excluded, and were those remedies effective before the final roll was published?

These questions turn a political allegation into an evidence-based constitutional inquiry.

1. Verification of Andhra Pradesh’s voter figures

After additions and deletions reported since the draft

The arithmetic is as follows:

Therefore, the claim that 3,75,69,896 voters were eliminated is incorrect. That is the number of electors on the revised roll as of October 14, not the number removed.

The more significant concern is that 44,89,512 entries—about 10.78% of the original electorate—were flagged and left out of the draft roll at the enumeration stage. That is a substantial number requiring transparent verification and effective safeguards against wrongful exclusion.

2. What happened to the 44.89 lakh entries?

The Election Commission’s reported breakdown was:

The categories matter. A deceased person, a duplicate registration and an eligible voter temporarily absent from home are not legally equivalent situations. Nor does an inability to locate a voter during a house visit automatically establish that the person is ineligible. The category described as untraceable deserves particular scrutiny. The relevant questions include whether the BLO made the required verification attempts, whether the elector was given a meaningful opportunity to respond, and whether the Electoral Registration Officer followed the prescribed procedure before deciding the elector’s status. There is also an important subsequent development. According to a report published on October 23, approximately 42.01 lakh of the 44.24 lakh electors served notices during verification were found eligible to remain on the rolls, while about 1.66 lakh were identified as deceased. These figures concern the later verification process and should not be confused with the original 44.89 lakh enumeration-stage figure.

3. Has the Supreme Court settled the legality of SIR?

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the legality of SIR in the Bihar proceedings recognised the Election Commission’s authority under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with the applicable electoral rules. The Court treated electoral-roll accuracy as essential to free and fair elections.

But the legal distinction is critical:

• Authority to conduct SIR does not mean that every individual exclusion is necessarily lawful.
• Power to verify eligibility does not eliminate the duty to follow the prescribed safeguards.
• The objective of removing ineligible entries must be pursued alongside the objective of including every eligible elector.
• A court’s approval of the revision framework does not automatically determine whether every officer complied with that framework in every case.

The judgment upheld the legality of the SIR framework challenged in the Bihar proceedings. It should not be described as a blanket judicial approval of every individual decision or every aspect of the Andhra Pradesh exercise.

4. What about constitutional rights and the duty of BLOs?

The question of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) is fundamental to the practical operation of electoral democracy.

Article 326 provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to the constitutional qualifications and disqualifications. Article 325 prohibits exclusion from electoral rolls on specified discriminatory grounds. The right to vote is governed by the constitutional and statutory electoral framework; it is not an unconditional right to vote regardless of eligibility.

The Election Commission’s power to revise electoral rolls must therefore be understood alongside its obligation to maintain accurate and inclusive rolls. BLOs are not merely agents for identifying names to be excluded. Their field-level responsibilities include conducting the prescribed verification, assisting electors with enumeration, identifying discrepancies, and supporting the enrolment process. Electoral Registration Officers have the statutory responsibility for decisions concerning registration and deletion.

An absent elector must not simply be equated with an ineligible elector. Where a person’s entry is questioned, the applicable procedure and the officer’s evidence-based determination are essential. The relevant safeguards under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, include Rule 21A and the prescribed procedures for notice, inquiry and determination. Andhra Pradesh’s own Chief Electoral Officer announced special enrolment camps and assistance through BLOs, including the use of Forms 6, 7 and 8 for the relevant registration, objection and correction processes. The final electoral roll was scheduled for publication on October 30, 2026. The critical accountability questions are whether these safeguards work in practice, whether excluded electors receive effective notice and assistance, and whether errors can be corrected before an election deprives an eligible citizen of an effective opportunity to vote.

Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar

Law professor and eminent columnist

Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, author of 63 books (in Telugu and English), Formerly Central Information Commissioner, Professor of NALSAR University, Bennett University (near Delhi), presently Professor and Advisor, Mahindra University, Hyderabad. Studied in Masoom Ali High School, AVV Junior College, CKM College, and Kakatiya University in Warangal. Madabhushi did LL.M., MCJ., and the highest law degree, LL.D. He won 4 Gold Medals at Kakatiya University and Osmania University.

Email: cicsridhar@gmail.com

Mobile: 8447651505