DAW october 29th 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

DAW october 29th 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

Question

Discuss the constitutional and legal implications of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, particularly in relation to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Citizenship Act, 1955. (250 Words, 15 Marks).

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction: 

  • Mention current context 

Body: cover 

  • Constitutional Framework and Article 324 

  • Representation of the People Act 1950 - Statutory Scope and Limitations 

  • Citizenship Act, 1955 - Jurisdictional Conflict 

  • Democratic and Administrative Implications 

  • Balancing “Roll Purity” with “Electoral Inclusion” 

 Conclusion: 

  • Conclude accordingly. 

 Introduction:  

  •  Free and fair elections constitute the core of India’s democratic republic and are part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973). To ensure electoral integrity, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has launched a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 12 States and Union Territories in 2025, covering about 51 crore electors. 

While the exercise aims to remove duplicate and ineligible entries, it has raised constitutional, legal, and procedural concerns regarding the ECI’s authority, the risk of disenfranchisement, and the overlap with citizenship determination under the Citizenship Act, 1955.    Body:  

Constitutional Framework and Article 324:  

  • Article 324(1) confers upon the ECI the power of “superintendence, direction, and control of elections.” 

  • The ECI cites this article, along with Article 326 which talks about universal adult suffrage (for Indian citizens above 18 years) and also allows for certain exclusions based on any law made by the parliament on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice. 

  • In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Supreme Court held that Article 324 acts as a “reservoir of power” in areas unoccupied by legislation to secure free and fair elections. 

  • However, in A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984), the Court clarified that where a law exists, the ECI must act within the statutory framework and cannot create procedures contrary to enacted law. 

  • Implication: 

SIR can be constitutionally valid only if it supplements existing laws, not substitutes them. Any measure that leads to arbitrary deletions or imposes new documentary burdens risks violating Articles 14 and 326, which guarantee equality and universal adult franchise.  Representation of the People Act, 1950 – Statutory Scope and Limitations: 

  • The RPA, 1950 governs the preparation and periodic revision of electoral rolls. 

  • Section 21(3) empowers the ECI to direct that rolls be revised “in such manner as it thinks fit.” 

  • However, this power is circumscribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which lay down the procedure for inclusion, deletion, and correction. 

  • Petitioners before the Supreme Court (in the Bihar SIR case, 2024–25) argued that the ECI’s demand for citizenship-related documents exceeded statutory limits and violated procedural fairness. 

  • Judicial Precedent: 

In Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving citizenship lies on new applicants, not on those already registered. 

  • Hence, by requiring re-verification of existing voters, SIR may contradict settled law and risk arbitrary disenfranchisement, violating Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 326 (adult suffrage). 

 Citizenship Act, 1955 – Jurisdictional Conflict: 

  • The Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Foreigners Act, 1946, assign the Central Government and designated tribunals the power to determine citizenship. 

  • The ECI’s attempt to verify citizenship through the SIR process—especially through lineage-based or parental proof columns—raises concerns of jurisdictional overreach. 

  • The Supreme Court has observed that while citizenship is an eligibility criterion for being on the rolls, the ECI cannot adjudicate or investigate citizenship disputes, as that domain lies with the Union Government. 

  • Implication: 

By entering into questions of lineage or birth documentation, the ECI risks converting the electoral roll revision into a citizenship verification exercise, echoing the controversies surrounding the NRC in Assam. This undermines legal clarity and could erode citizens’ trust in electoral neutrality.  Democratic and Administrative Implications: 

  • Right to Vote: Though statutory, it embodies the constitutional principle of political equality. Mass deletions or arbitrary exclusions undermine this democratic right. 

  • Procedural Fairness: The Supreme Court has already intervened to ensure transparency, inclusion of Aadhaar as an optional proof, and publication of draft rolls. 

  • Inclusion vs. Exclusion: Bihar’s SIR saw a 6% reduction in voters, later partially restored — highlighting risks of error and exclusion among women, migrants, and marginalised groups. 

  • Federal and Social Balance: Conducting SIRs without adequate consultation or preparation may disturb the federal balance and increase administrative burdens on Booth Level Officers (BLOs). 

 Balancing “Roll Purity” with “Electoral Inclusion”: 

  • Need for SIR: Frequent complaints of duplicate or ghost voters justify periodic cleansing. 

  • But: Roll purification must not become a tool of voter exclusion or suspicion-based verification. 

  • Administrative reforms like ECINET integration, simplified document requirements, and stakeholder consultations can reconcile these goals. 

  • A phased, transparent, and participatory approach, learning from Bihar’s experience, can safeguard both integrity and inclusion. 

  • Right to Vote: Though statutory, it embodies the constitutional principle of political equality. Mass deletions or arbitrary exclusions undermine this democratic right. 

 Conclusion:  

  • The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) underscores the ECI’s constitutional duty to preserve the sanctity of electoral rolls—vital to democratic legitimacy. Yet, it walks a constitutional tightrope between Article 324’s plenary powers, the RPA 1950’s statutory limits, and the Citizenship Act 1955’s exclusive domain. True electoral integrity lies in transparency, inclusion, and public trust - the essence of India’s constitutional democracy.