Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Author :  CA  A. K. Jain The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) being implemented by the present government - intended to better track foreigners and clean up electoral rolls - does have several arguments in its favour, and also significant criticisms. Whether it “should be appreciated by everyone” depends on how one weighs potential benefits vs. risks. Here’s a breakdown of why many believe SIR is useful for India - and why many others remain skeptical or oppose it. What are the benefits / why SIR can be useful for India • Ensures electoral integrity & “one-person, one-vote”. SIR is meant to remove duplicate entries, deceased or shifted voters, and ineligible voters from the rolls. That strengthens the fairness of elections, by ensuring that only legally eligible citizens vote. • Prevents illegal immigrants from getting on electoral rolls. A key aim of SIR is to identify and exclude non-citizens (or those using fake/forged IDs) - something considered essential especially in border or high-migration regions, to safeguard national security and demographic integrity. • Brings voter lists up to date after decades. In many states, the last full intensive revision happened 18–22 years ago. Since then, many people have died, moved, or attained adulthood. SIR helps clean up these “legacy errors” and ensures the voter list reflects the current population. • Strengthens democratic legitimacy and trust. With credible and accurate voter lists, public trust in the electoral process can improve. Elections based on false or inflated voter rolls undermine democracy - SIR tries to address that. • Potential to improve governance and resource allocation. Accurate registration (and removal of fictitious or duplicate entries) can help ensure that welfare schemes and public services are accessed by genuine citizens, rather than being siphoned off through fraudulent identities. This aligns with government concerns about fraudulent access to identity and benefit schemes. • Given these, many supporters view SIR not merely as an administrative exercise, but as foundational to protecting the integrity of India’s democracy and preventing misuse of identity/benefits by illegal or non-citizens. Why SIR is controversial and why many don’t appreciate it • Risk of disenfranchisement - especially of the poor, migrants, minorities. Critics argue that SIR puts the onus on individuals (often poor, migrant workers, or marginalized groups) to produce documentation. Many may lack the required documents, or may be unaware of deadlines - leading to genuine citizens being removed from electoral rolls. • Possibility of misuse / political bias. Some fear the process may be used to shape voter rolls in favour of certain parties - e.g., by “accidentally” or deliberately excluding supporters of opposition parties, or by disproportionately targeting minority-dominated areas. • Transparency and accountability concerns. Even though SIR aims to catch illegal immigrants, critics point out that there has been limited public disclosure about how many names removed were actually non-citizens. For example, a petitioner recently asked the court to force the poll body to reveal number of foreigners identified through SIR, arguing that so far data is opaque. • Administrative burden and possible human cost. Large-scale house-to-house verification covering crores of voters is logistically massive. There are concerns about adequacy of time, training, support for staff, and the stress it places on common citizens. In some debatable cases, this kind of pressure can lead to errors or even distress among officials. • Broader debate about privacy, citizenship and identity verification. Use of identity documents, verification of citizenship, and exclusion of individuals perceived as “outsiders” raises deep social, legal and ethical questions - especially in a diverse, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society like India. The process risks marginalizing communities who lack robust documentation or who are economically and socially vulnerable. Because of these issues, many people - civil-rights groups, opposition parties, and citizens from vulnerable communities - view SIR with suspicion and see it as potentially harmful rather than helpful. SIR is useful - only if implemented transparently I think the goals behind SIR - clean electoral rolls, preventing illegal voting, protecting democratic integrity - are valid and important. On paper, a periodic intensive revision of voter lists is not only justified, but perhaps overdue. However, the benefits will materialise only if: • The process is transparent and non-discriminatory (with clear data on deletions/additions, especially if citizenship or foreign status is involved). • Adequate safeguards exist for poor, marginalized, migrant or minority communities - so that genuine citizens are not unfairly disenfranchised. • There is clear communication, public awareness, and support (including help to those lacking proper documents). • The exercise remains focused on electoral integrity - not used as a veneer for political advantage or identity-based exclusion. In short: SIR can be a good initiative - but it must be executed with care, fairness, and respect for citizens’ rights. ---------------------------------------------------- Author : CA Anil K. Jain Email: CAINDIA@HOTMAIL.COM Cell: +919810046108