SIR 2.0 and the Voter’s Ordeal: Why a Tech-First Exercise Has Become a Source of Fear

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2.0 of electoral rolls was presented as a technology-driven effort to clean voter lists while ensuring that no eligible Indian is excluded. Instead, it has produced widespread anxiety, summoning even the most eminent citizens to prove their identity. The episode has exposed a troubling paradox: the Election Commission of India possesses sophisticated digital infrastructure, yet continues to rely on coercive, paper-heavy processes that shift the burden of institutional failure onto voters.

What SIR 2.0 set out to do

SIR 2.0 was meant to correct errors in electoral rolls, remove duplicates and include every eligible resident. With the Election Commission’s digital backbone — ECINet — capable of handling data entry, verification, audit trails and cross-checks, the expectation was of a transparent, efficient, and citizen-friendly process.

Instead, the exercise has leaned heavily on physical forms, summons and in-person hearings. This reliance on manual procedures has undermined the very premise of a digital reform and reintroduced errors, delays and intimidation that technology was meant to eliminate.

When eminence offers no protection

The scale of the problem is illustrated by who has been summoned. A Nobel laureate and Bharat Ratna awardee in his 90s was asked to explain an alleged age mismatch. A former Police Commissioner of Kolkata — who oversaw the 2002 SIR — was found “non-mapped”. MPs, DGPs, vice chancellors, professors and senior bureaucrats have been called upon to establish their identity and residence.

Perhaps most stark is the case of monks from the Ramakrishna Math and Mission, summoned because their biological parents’ names do not match the names of gurus they now consider parents. Though they do not vote, they seek inclusion in rolls to avoid administrative and visa hurdles. Institutions meant to protect democracy, critics argue, should honour such citizens — not subject them to procedural indignity.

Legacy flaws carried forward

The roots of the problem lie not in technology but in choices. SIR 2.0 rests on electoral rolls prepared during the 2002–04 revision — a period dominated by pen-and-paper methods and lacking robust verification. Those rolls were known to be incomplete and inconsistent. Yet they were adopted as the baseline for a supposedly modern exercise.

Across 12 States and Union Territories, draft rolls have triggered two major concerns. First is the scale of deletions: nearly 6.5 crore voters appear to have vanished compared to the 2024 final rolls. In Uttar Pradesh, anomalies became so stark that submissions before the Supreme Court highlighted how draft SIR rolls showed fewer voters than rural Panchayat rolls alone — an implausible outcome pointing to data mismatches.

The rise of the ‘non-mapped’ voter

The second concern is the emergence of millions of “non-mapped” voters — citizens missing from legacy rolls who are now flagged for verification. Many have voted for decades, yet are being summoned under ad hoc SOPs to prove their residence.

In Uttar Pradesh alone, over one crore voters — around 8% of Enumeration Forms — were categorised as non-mapped. Nationwide, the number runs into several crores. These voters are pulled into hurried, poorly organised hearings for failures that originate within the Commission’s own databases. What should have been a backend correction has become a front-end ordeal.

When correction becomes punishment

The most troubling consequence is how the process traps voters in legal risk. Citizens whose names were wrongly deleted are asked to seek restoration using Form 6 — a form meant for first-time enrolment. Doing so forces them to declare that they have never been enrolled anywhere, a statement that is factually untrue.

This exposes them to potential criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for errors that are not of their making. Institutional lapses thus translate into personal legal jeopardy — a reversal of accountability that corrodes trust.

Why digital verification is the obvious remedy

Ironically, the solution already exists. Election Commission of India’s ECINet platform can support a digital-first workflow that eliminates the need for most hearings. Applicants could be notified of their status via SMS or email. Where discrepancies arise, voters could upload documents online, with backend verification using unique identifiers — much like Aadhaar-based authentication — and receive acknowledgements at every stage.

Such a system would reduce human discretion, cut delays, and spare citizens the humiliation of summons. For those less digitally comfortable, BLOs or local electoral offices could assist without turning verification into an adversarial process.

The larger democratic question

At its core, SIR 2.0 raises a fundamental issue: is the exercise designed to clean electoral rolls while upholding dignity, or is it being implemented in a way that harasses genuine voters and breeds disengagement? The distress seen so far reflects not technological limits but enforcement choices.

Democracy is not strengthened by suspicion alone. It rests on trust, inclusion and fair process. A voter revision that punishes citizens for institutional shortcomings risks eroding all three. If electoral reform is to succeed, it must place digital capacity at the centre — not as a slogan, but as a lived reality that protects the voter rather than putting them on trial in their own country.