Former Election Commissioner of India Ashok Lavasa has publicly questioned the fairness of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that while the exercise may be legally permissible, it raises serious concerns about equity and democratic participation. Lavasa’s remarks add the weight of a former constitutional functionary to a controversy that has drawn petitions, political criticism, and street-level protests across several states.
Lavasa stated that statutory institutions, constitutional bodies, and governments have increasingly begun operating on the principle that “might is right.” Speaking on the implications of the SIR process, he asked whether deliberate efforts were being made to create conditions under which citizens become disenchanted with the democratic process itself. The comments frame the revision not merely as a technical exercise in cleaning electoral rolls but as a potential mechanism of exclusion whose costs fall disproportionately on those least equipped to bear them.
What Happened
Lavasa, who served as an Election Commissioner before his resignation, made the remarks at a public forum, according to a report by The Hindu. He drew a deliberate distinction between the legal validity of the SIR process and its fairness on the ground. In doing so, he echoed a critique that has gained traction among civil society groups, opposition politicians, and a section of legal commentators who have argued that the procedure’s documentation requirements, enumeration methods, and appeal mechanisms are stacked against vulnerable voters.
The SIR is a periodic exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to update and authenticate voter lists. In recent cycles, the process has required residents to produce one of several prescribed documents to establish identity and residency. Critics have noted that residents of informal settlements, migrant workers, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and members of marginalized communities often face practical barriers in compiling such paperwork, even when their names already appear on existing rolls.
Lavasa’s intervention comes at a moment when the SIR has become politically contested. Multiple opposition-ruled states have challenged aspects of the process before the Supreme Court and high courts, arguing that the manner in which the revision has been conducted risks large-scale disenfranchisement. The ECI has maintained that the revision is conducted strictly in accordance with the law and is essential to the integrity of the electoral roll.
Why It Matters
Lavasa’s critique carries unusual weight because of his institutional background. Election Commissioners occupy a constitutionally protected position, insulated from executive interference precisely to allow them to safeguard the franchise without political pressure. When a former occupant of that office publicly raises concerns about the fairness of an ongoing ECI exercise, it shifts the conversation from partisan allegation to institutional caution.
His framing — separating legality from fairness — also speaks to a recurring tension in democratic governance: a procedure can comply with statutory requirements while still producing outcomes that undermine inclusive participation. The point is procedural rather than conspiratorial. It does not accuse the ECI of acting outside its powers; it questions whether the powers being exercised are being deployed in a manner consistent with the constitutional promise of universal adult suffrage.
For ordinary voters, the practical stakes are concrete. If a name is removed from the draft roll and not restored during the claims and objections window, the affected person may be unable to vote in the next election unless and until the name is reinstated. In constituencies where electoral margins are narrow, even small numbers of deletions can be determinative. The cumulative effect of documentation barriers, lack of awareness of the claims process, and limited access to BLOs (Booth Level Officers) can therefore translate into measurable exclusion.
Background and Context
Electoral roll revision in India is governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed thereunder. The ECI has periodically conducted Intensive Revision and Special Intensive Revision exercises, with the latter typically applied to constituencies where the roll requires more rigorous updating — for example, after reports of large-scale migration, demographic change, or suspected inclusion of ineligible entries.
The current SIR has been politically charged from the outset. Opposition parties have alleged that the process has been initiated selectively and conducted in a manner that disadvantages their voters. The ECI has responded by asserting that the SIR is being carried out transparently, with adequate opportunity for citizens to verify and correct entries. Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court and various High Courts challenging specific aspects of the revision, including the enumeration methodology, the sufficiency of notice, and the adequacy of the claims window.
Lavasa himself is no stranger to institutional friction. During his tenure as Election Commissioner, he was publicly associated with disagreements over the conduct of certain ECI decisions, and he resigned from the body before the completion of his term. His subsequent public commentary has tended to focus on the standards expected of constitutional institutions and the importance of insulating them from political pressure. That posture lends his current remarks a consistency that critics of the SIR may find useful and defenders may find selective.
The broader debate in which his intervention sits is not new. After every major revision cycle, civil society organizations have flagged that the burden of documentation falls hardest on the poor, the homeless, the internally displaced, and communities with low literacy. Reports from the field during previous revisions have documented cases of genuine voters being struck off rolls because they could not produce utility bills, ration cards, or Aadhaar documentation, even when their neighbours and polling station records confirmed continuous residence.
What to Watch Next
Several developments will shape how Lavasa’s remarks translate into public debate and legal action. First, the Supreme Court and High Courts hearing petitions against the SIR will determine whether any procedural safeguards — extended claims windows, additional document options, or reverification requirements — are ordered before the next round of elections in affected states. Second, the ECI’s response to the criticism, both in official statements and in field-level practice, will indicate whether concerns raised by former functionaries are being treated as inputs or as interference.
Third, civil society organizations are likely to intensify voter-awareness drives in constituencies where draft rolls have seen significant deletions, focusing particularly on first-time voters, women, and migrant households. Fourth, opposition parties will almost certainly amplify Lavasa’s remarks in Parliament and in state assemblies, seeking to convert the “legal but unfair” framing into a political demand for revision of the SIR protocol itself.
Finally, the trajectory of the controversy will depend on whether other former Election Commissioners or senior bureaucrats enter the public discussion. Each additional institutional voice either reinforces the criticism or narrows its perceived partisan framing. Lavasa’s intervention has opened that door; whether others walk through it will determine how durable the “legal but unfair” argument becomes in the months ahead.
Conclusion
Ashok Lavasa’s critique does not allege illegality. By emphasizing that the SIR “may be legal but is not fair,” he places the dispute on terrain that is harder for the ECI to dismiss through legal argument alone: the lived experience of voters who may be struck from rolls not because they are not citizens, but because they cannot prove their citizenship in the form the process demands. Whether that framing gains wider traction will depend on how the courts, the Commission, and political actors respond in the coming weeks.
Sources:
The Hindu – https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sir-may-be-legal-but-it-is-not-fair-former-ec-ashok-lavasa/article71424450.ece
Source: The Hindu – National
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
