To begin with, how do you view the manner in which phase 2 of SIR has been carried out so far?

Actually I find that under the law Election Commission has mandate to prescribe the way intensive revision can be conducted and therefore there is no legal infirmity in the whole process. However, I find that the process they prescribed was almost requiring four times the work from the booth level officers (BLOs). Like distributing enumeration forms, helping them to fill those forms, helping them to map with 2003 lists if they can’t do it, then collect the enumeration forms, then check those forms and then upload in the server of Election Commission.

So this four times the workload, they did not cater for that kind of time. They gave only 30 days which is minimum prescribed under the law and therefore lot of hue and cry at the front of BLOs was raised. Initially, in fact there were talks of BLO suicides and deaths and all those things. Which was just because of this very short period. And workload having been increased to almost four times.

Their presumption was also not well founded. They presumed that the BLOs will be available to them for 10 hours a day, for 30 days, 300 hours. So it will be very easy for the BLO, without realising that BLO is not Election Commission’s employee. The BLO is an employee of School Education Department, is a teacher, is an anganwadi worker or working somewhere. So they just cannot leave their position 100 per cent time for one month. So they used to give four or five hours for Election Commission work and four hours for their own work. Because exams were there. Courses had to be completed. Because in February the board exam will come. So all those considerations were not kept in mind. That resulted in lot of stress.

However, later on they realised this problem and they enhanced the deadlines. Like now the final publication will be on February 22 which was earlier prescribed in January. So with that I think the things will improve. But this large number of deletion in draft roll, 6.56 crores, and the logical discrepancies, these two figures are mind-boggling.

My firsthand experience in Madhya Pradesh, I’m living in Bhopal, is that certain people who are living close to us, they also were not finding their names in the draft roll. Because they had gone for almost one and a half months abroad. When they returned, they notice that this kind of thing is happening and their names are not there. Now they are struggling for getting their names mapped on 2003, then getting the enumeration form, filling it. So I feel that if in this matter Election Commission becomes a little liberal, all those people who are missing out because of being absent at that time and now they are there, then they should be facilitated so that they can map their names with 2003 list.

They can support their claim with whatever documents available with them. Then things will ease out. But that is happening sporadically. Like some places it is happening. In rural areas in Madhya Pradesh it is happening. But in urban centres like Bhopal, Indore things are a little difficult. Because urban areas are now struggling with their own problems. You might have heard in Indore some deaths have occurred because of the sewage water mixing with the water supply. So those are the issues which they must consider and come out with some resolving techniques.

Do you feel that the SIR has been conducted in a hurried manner that more time should have been given for the procedure to be carried out and also the steps involved. For example, each and every voter has to fill up an enumeration form to figure in the draft list and then each of the voter is required to prove his or her eligibility to be on the voter list. So this kind of a rigorous exercise, was it really needed?

As I told you, the law is very clear. Law says that in whatever manner Election Commission prescribes, the revision will be carried out. Now this is the method prescribed by Election Commission. So we cannot question because we are all under the law. We have to obey the law and therefore we will not question on that. But you are right, that this was done hurriedly. The assessment of the work, time required for completing that was not adequate, and therefore a lot of hue and cry resulted, and all these problems cropped up. Same thing happened in Bihar also.

An issue which is being discussed is whether the Election Commission was legally empowered to place the onus on the voter himself or herself to prove that they should be on the voter list. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Lal Babu Hussein case was has been referred to in this regard. And also the Election Commission’s own guidelines for the EROs have also been talked about and the EC’s manual on electoral rules has also been referred to. So how do you look at this debate?

You have raised a very important issue. This is the legal interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court in 1995 ruling that Election Commission has no authority, no right, to ask every voter to prove the citizenship. That is very clear. And therefore Election Commission has also taken a step back on that count. Instead of asking that you have to prove your citizenship what they have done in the process which is prescribed for SIR that you have to map your name with the earlier SIR voter list which is 2002, 2003, 2004, in some States 2005. If that is mapped you have to provide nothing, just sign the enumeration form and give it.

However if your name doesn’t figure there then you have to give certain details that anybody related to you like your parents, their name in the 2003 list, your relationship with your parents, the proof for that, so that you can be related to them and you can be certified that your name should be here. So they have gone into a circuitous manner to ask for proof of citizenship so that Supreme Court doesn’t come in the way.

I think that is a very clever move but it has caused lot of burden on the citizens and voters which is a problem. Second thing is with that there is a threat in the form itself. If you read the numeration form there is a threat. If you furnish any wrong information in the enumeration form you can be punished with one year’s imprisonment. That is causing lot of worry among certain voters who feel that enrolling and voting is itself a lot of hassles. And now this threat of jail. So they feel that it’s safe not to enroll, not to vote, which is really not healthy for a democracy. We should ensure, encourage people to come forward to enroll and vote. In fact Election Commission spends crores of rupees to on their programme SVEEP. This is a little antithetical to that.

Supporters of the DMK-led INDIA bloc protest against SIR, in Chennai, on November 11, 2025. | Photo Credit: S.R. RAGHUNATHAN

In this regard, I want to ask you about this allegation which continues to be made that the SIR is in fact NRC in disguise. And there is also this fear amongst the minorities that they could lose their citizenship if they are not able to prove that they are citizens. So how do you look at this allegation that the EC has actually embarked on an NRC through the SIR.

Actually political discontent will always be there in any such exercise from all sides. In fact the ruling BJP also in UP was raising a red flag that in their local body elections the presumption was 17 crore voters. And now you are saying that only 12 point some odd crores voters. So you are removing 4.5 crore voters after the local body election. So that was the worry of the BJP. So this will always happen.

But if you see it is not NRC because NRC was held in Assam during 2016 elections when I was there at the Election Commission and we coordinated with the Supreme Court and Mr. Prateek Hazela who used to be NRC coordinator in Assam. And we found that that process was entirely different. Foreigners’ tribunals were constituted. Then anybody who was doubtful was put a “D” of his name in the voter list and he was called or she was called “D voter”. All those processes were followed and then they finally closed with the 19 lakh “D voters” who were considered that they are doubtful voters and they are not citizens.

But Assam government itself rejected that list. Assam government is also BJP government and they rejected that list and it has not fructified till date. So it is just in a limbo. That way if you feel that it is NRC, I would not agree to that. It is very different than NRC and it is within the four walls of Representation of People Act 1950 provisions. Strictly following those, only some logistical issues were there when they could not assess the time frame properly and that caused lot of problems to the BLOs and other people.

Now again the logical discrepancies is also causing a lot of trouble, because that number is also huge. Now these discrepancies come for many reasons like earlier the recorded demographic entries may be erroneous. And now when you are matched with that 2003 list you cannot correct that because that is a final thing. So with both erroneous entries when you match you find that your father was just about 15-yearold when you were born. Which is all definitely a logical discrepancy because 15 year old cannot father a child. So those kind of issues are there. I feel that if the machinery is grounded totally on these matters, go back to 2003 list, find such errors and reconcile easily to the satisfaction of the voter, it will evaporate and I think people will be happy on that and they will not feel scared of the one year imprisonment threat.

When we look at the numbers involved, 6.56 crore voters or 13 per cent of the total number of voters are out of the voters list. And in Uttar Pradesh alone 3.26 crore voters are likely to get notices with regard to logical discrepancies or not getting mapped with 2003 SIR. If you look at these numbers, do you think that the critics who say that SIR is actually an exercise in mass disenfranchisement? There is some merit in their criticism, in their allegation, prima facie.

Yes, I agree. Because in Uttar Pradesh if you remove all these 3.89 crores non-mapped and 3.26 crore logical discrepancies, it’s huge. Their own Chief Minister has argued that this is really wrong and actual voters have exercised their franchise and now you are saying that they are not voters. So I feel that the process itself will have to be so sympathetic and liberal to the voter that whosoever is trying to clarify, to justify, to prove with whatever little documents or evidence that person has, I think the election machinery should be understanding a step more than their call of duty to help and ensure that all these people come in.

Like I gave you an example that some people in my neighborhood had gone abroad. Now they were running from pillar to post and I had to speak to the authority and they got the relief. But everyone is not that lucky. So better is right at the grassroots level, at the BLO level, this message should go that if a person is present physically, living there physically, the neighbourhood certifies that he has been or she has been living there physically and was born to this family, and if this logical discrepancy is on the record then there is some error on that, you should try and accommodate that person. I think though that kind of approach will be very healthy and good for the democracy.

Otherwise, you know, Supreme Court threat is also there to Election Commission. Honorable Supreme Court in the last hearing said that even if one voter who is eligible to get enrolled is left out and it is proven to us, then we will annul the SIR. That will be whole labour getting lost. So they must ensure that anybody who is present, who is finally a voter here, who has been living here, and finding it difficult to prove, then just help help that person.

Official distributes Special Intensive Revision forms at Karimpur Assembly constituency in Nadia, West Bengal, on November 10, 2025. | Photo Credit: Ashis Pramanik/ANI

We have had SIR in the past too and we never had this kind of a furore or unrest on the ground. Was the format of the SIR as it was conducted in the past adequate enough to cleanse the electoral roll could the Election Commission have followed the same format this time around as well?

You have raised a very important issue. Earlier SIR used to pass just like summary revision without any problem because voters were not burdened with any kind of evidentiary proof, that you have to provide this proof. It was all done by the election machinery. They used to prepare the electoral roll de novo by going from house to house. They would ask the person available at the house: who are all are living, their age, their birth, etc, and will make a new electoral role which will be published at draft roll and then claims objection, final rule.

This time the enumeration form was prescribed, which gives a lot of workload, lot of homework for the voter as well as the BLO because the mapping is very difficult. Internet penetration is there in our country, but many areas it is not there. And many people are not that resourceful that they will have Internet at their fingertips. They’ll have to go to some common service center or somewhere or take somebody’s help. All those opportunities cannot come by easily. Time limits are fixed. Those constraints have resulted in this kind of deletions.

Whenever we had any revision, any summary revision, generally 6 to 7 per cent deletions took place because 3 to 4 per cent deaths occurred, 2 to 3 per cent people used to get transferred, migrated to other locations, get registered there, so those could be deleted. And 1 per cent permanently migrated like that. So 6 to 7 per cent were the normal deletion figure in every revision, whenever we had that kind of revision.

This time it is crossing that around 12, 13, 14 per cent like that, that portion of voters that is some something which is available somewhere which is not present here during the time you prescribed for this exercise. And just because of those reasons, that person is losing out on his or her name in the electoral roll. Those eventualities one has to avoid, one has to prevent any loss of voters, because of this requirement. One should be sympathetic to their needs.

With regard to NRC, you made a mention of Assam. Assam was kept out of SIR this time it was the only poll-going State which did not have an SIR. Instead, a special revision was ordered by the Election Commission to be carried out in Assam which was a step above summary revision but not as intensive as the SIR. How do you look at this decision? Do you feel that an SIR could have been conducted in Assam?

Actually Election Commission has no fetters. Law gives them absolute authority to prescribe a procedure for doing any revision, whether intensive or summary, they can prescribe. That prescribed procedure has to be followed to conduct the revision. So there legally there is absolutely no constraint on that.

But since Supreme Court monitored that NRC thing and it is still in a limbo, not finalised and therefore they took the plea that since Supreme Court is seized of this matter, State government is fighting against it that they will not accept this list. So they decided that they will not have a SIR of the kind which they have unleashed in other States and three Union Territories. Instead they will have a simpler thing which is between summary revision and intensive revision, that kind of thing. So I think that is okay. One should not worry on that. Only thing is that the process should go in a way that no eligible voter is left behind and no ineligible voter finds a place in the electoral roll.

We have some really intense politicking happening over the SIR. The ruling BJP accuses the opposition parties of wanting to protect the votes of illegal immigrants. And the opposition parties on the other hand claim that the BJP is using the SIR as a pretext to manipulate the voter list. What does this politicking do to this entire exercise?

Actually politicking will always take place because, you know, elections have replaced battles and wars for deciding the political conflict as to who will rule now. Millions used to die before it was decided that who will rule the state or the country. Elections have replaced that process and made it so peaceful and so good that we get a result and bloodless transfer of power takes place.

We feel that even this kind of thing should not happen. Not even hate speeches, not even allegations, not even politicking. I think that is asking for too much. Something will happen because a major conflict is being decided through this process and they will do everything, they will fight tooth and nail to ensure their victory. In fact, even in sports, if you see for a medal, they go for even doping. So those kind of issues are there. We have to bear with some of these issues and ensure that no injustice is done to any eligible voter and that person is not left behind.

That is why I am saying all these things that all these logical discrepancies should be handled very sympathetically, liberally, with eyes wide open for any source of evidence to prove that it is a good voter, correct voter and should be included. Similarly, for all those people who were missing because of some foreign travel or some other journeys, they can also be accommodated. I think it will be completed without any sort of issues.

In the end, I want to ask you about the many questions that are being raised about the SIR. What do they mean about for the image of the Election Commission? Increasingly it is being felt that the credibility of the Election Commission is coming under a cloud.

You have hit the nail there. A lot of erosion of late since Bihar days has been seen in the public space on that count. Which is very unfortunate because India’s Election Commission has done wonderful work since the first election under Chief Election Commissioner Sukumar Sen when without a template, he had no electoral roll to begin with, refugees from west, refugees from East Pakistan, they were living in camps without addresses and all kinds of problems were there, no mobile, no WhatsApp, no communication, and laws were not there. Representation of People Act came in 1950 and another Representation of People Act came in 1951.

Whereas 1951 they had to hold election. The timeline was given that in 1951 you must start the election. So they completed enrolling 17.5 crore voters without any issue, without any problem and ensured that elections are held on time, free, fair, and credible. Starting from there when Britishers had gone back saying that India will ruin its democracy, its country, by giving universal suffrage and all that, we proved them wrong. Our democracy is not only surviving but thriving after 75 years. So that way I feel that Election Commission had done a sterling role, earned a great reputation worldwide. All election management bodies across the world used to praise us like anything. Because I attended many international conferences during my tenure there. I found that everywhere they were eager to ask us about our technology, about our software, about our arrangements. They were very happy and impressed with our performance.

Because of these small issues like not assessing the workload, not giving that kind of time which will be required for a stress-free delivery, these small little things, they have resulted in so much of bad blood against the EC which is doing very fine. I can name a book by Ornit Shani. It is how India became democratic. If you can get hold of this, you read it. She researched during our period at Election Commission and traced everything how universal suffrage could could materialise without any problem. And Election Commission delivered everything on time without any hiccup. So I hope they will also come out of this issue and finally Election Commission will again be the same shining example.