Lalit Gargg
India’s democracy today stands at a decisive crossroads, where questions about its credibility and strength have grown more serious than ever. The transparency of elections, the purity of electoral rolls, and the authenticity of voter identification—crucial from both administrative and national security perspectives—are not mere bureaucratic formalities. They constitute the very soul of democracy.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is precisely such an essential exercise, initiated to identify and verify suspicious, duplicate, or illegal entries in the voter list. It is unfortunate, however, that a process intended to strengthen democracy is being viewed through the narrow lens of political interest by certain opposition parties. The kind of impulsive, emotional, and often fact-deficient arguments presented before the Supreme Court indicate that this resistance is less about principle and more about the fear of losing vote banks.
The Supreme Court rightly reminded those creating unreasonable—and even anti-national—hurdles that in Bihar, not a single person came forward claiming their name was wrongly deleted from the voter list. Remarkably, those who loudly alleged selective voter deletions during the Bihar SIR could not produce even one example of such a supposed victim.
Despite being proven wrong in Bihar, opposition parties continue their resistance. Now they seek to halt the ongoing SIR process in 12 states, even though nearly 65% of the forms have already been submitted—clearly reflecting people’s enthusiastic participation. The necessity of SIR cannot be overstated: electoral rolls are riddled with errors. Names of deceased individuals remain, many have moved elsewhere, and several hold duplicate voter IDs. Through SIR, the Election Commission is simply attempting to eliminate these irregularities.
What puzzles many is why this move troubles certain political groups. They claim irregularities exist yet oppose the very mechanism designed to correct them.
The gravest threat to democracy emerges when the voter list becomes contaminated by illegal insertions, external infiltrators, and politically sponsored additions. India has long grappled with foreign infiltration. Unchecked migration across states, unplanned settlements in border regions, and politically protected illegal habitats are realities that cannot be ignored without compromising national interest. SIR was launched precisely to update and purify voter lists, ensuring they remain transparent, reliable, and fact-based. The process targets no community, region, or class; it simply verifies individual identity.
Yet the opposition portrays it as an assault on rights, a politically motivated act, or a tool of discrimination—nothing more than deliberate misinformation aimed at confusing innocent citizens. If the process is uniform, nationwide, and conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court, how can it be labelled anti-democratic? Opposition groups have failed to answer this fundamental question with any factual or logical basis.
The concern that states like West Bengal may have significant numbers of infiltrators from Bangladesh on voter rolls is not unfounded. Their recent return to Bangladesh itself raises serious questions. Though Aadhaar is accepted as an identity document, it too can be fraudulently obtained. Hence, the Election Commission must have the authority to verify documents thoroughly.
An analysis of the opposition’s arguments in the Supreme Court reveals a glaring lack of facts and data. Instead, emotional appeals, artificially constructed fears, attempts to discredit administrative processes, and noisy accusations dominate. Clearly, the goal is not to protect democracy but to safeguard political turf. If electoral rolls are flawless, if infiltration is a myth, and if no demographic’s legitimacy is in question—why fear verification? Only those who feel threatened by scrutiny seek to avoid it. Those who are legitimate, lawful, and transparent have nothing to fear. This resistance therefore appears not as a defence of democracy, but as an attempt to exploit democracy for political gain.
For years, India has faced complaints about duplicate entries, deceased voters, fictitious names, and illegal additions in electoral rolls. Many of these issues stem from administrative negligence, but a significant portion arises from political interests that benefit from maintaining such entries. It is no secret that in several states, local political networks have not only sheltered infiltrators but also facilitated their access to voter identities and public benefits. In such circumstances, a process like SIR is not just appropriate—it is essential. Delaying it will only deepen the threat to democracy.
Another aspect of the opposition’s resistance is the fear that a purified electoral roll may disrupt their vote calculations. This political mindset leaves little room for idealism. Parties often assume that wherever demographics favour them, any reform might weaken their electoral strength. This mindset violates the spirit of democracy, which is not merely a pathway to power but a guardian of citizens’ trust and constitutional values.
SIR does not aim to disenfranchise anyone. It simply ensures that voting rights are exercised by legitimate, eligible citizens whose names are correctly listed. India’s democratic future depends on reforms that make elections more transparent and trustworthy. As long as voter lists remain impure, election results will be doubted and democracy’s credibility will weaken. SIR is a bold step in this direction, and it must not be stalled by political pressure or misinformation campaigns. The Supreme Court’s oversight makes the process even more impartial and secure, rendering opposition efforts even more baseless.
This is a rare opportunity to repair and strengthen democracy. Parties attempting to obstruct this process may claim to represent public interest, but in reality, they are protecting narrow political interests. India needs not such politics, but a system that prioritizes truth over convenience, the Constitution over power, and treats the voter list as a sacred democratic register—not a political tool. The pace and scope of SIR must therefore be maintained—and intensified—so that India’s democracy can move toward a stronger, more transparent, and more reliable future, free from illegal influences and built on the solid foundation of authentic electoral participation.
(Lalit Gargg
Writer, Journalist, Columnist
E-253, Saraswati Kunj Apartment
25 IP Extensions, Patparganj, Delhi-92)
