The Supreme Court’s intervention in the ongoing controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls could not have come at a more crucial moment.
On Tuesday, the Court took serious note of reports that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were being threatened and that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) revision work was being obstructed in West Bengal and other states.
The Bench made it clear that any instance of intimidation or administrative non-cooperation must be brought before it, promising “appropriate orders” if required to protect the integrity of the process. Revision of electoral rolls is as old as elections themselves.
It is a routine administrative exercise meant to include new voters who have reached the eligible age and exclude those who have passed away. But the ECI invited controversy when it designated the current exercise as a “Special Intensive Revision”.
Behind the nomenclature lay new practices—most notably, treating the base rolls as those prepared nearly 22 years ago. This, combined with documentation requirements that many poor and uneducated citizens simply could not meet, triggered widespread discontent. It ultimately forced the Commission to accept Aadhaar as valid proof for inclusion.
The consequences of these procedural missteps were visible on the ground. Bihar saw large numbers of genuine voters excluded, while bogus voters found their way into the lists in disturbingly high numbers. Instead of responding to the charges with facts and figures, the ECI allowed the matter to boil.
Political parties and the governments they lead were naturally upset. But disagreement with the SIR does not give any state the licence to obstruct the process.
The Supreme Court noted that the evidence of intimidation is thus far limited—a single FIR, with no substantial material to prove systematic harassment of BLOs. Yet the Court also recognised the precarious position of these officers.
The BLOs already shoulder a Herculean task, going door-to-door, verifying details, and feeding data into the system, all within tight deadlines. Reports suggest that at least a few, overwhelmed by pressure, took their own lives. They are performing a national service and deserve protection, not hostility.
The ECI told the Court that if obstruction continues, it may have to seek police personnel on deputation to ensure the officials’ safety. The Commission also reminded the Bench that it possesses the constitutional authority necessary to conduct elections—authority that cannot be diluted by state governments.
States are well within their rights to challenge the SIR in court if they believe it is flawed or politically motivated. What they cannot do is hinder BLOs on the ground.
The Supreme Court’s warning should, therefore, serve as a clear message: electoral rolls are the foundation of democracy, and any attempt to undermine their revision is an attack on the democratic process itself.
