Daily Editorial Analysis 12 November 2025

The Infirmities in the SIR of Electoral Rolls

Context

• The Election Commission of India (ECI), empowered under Article 324 of the Constitution, bears the crucial duty of ensuring free, fair, and credible elections.
• However, the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ordered by the ECI in twelve States and Union Territories, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, has triggered strong protests and even legal challenges before the Supreme Court of India.
• Conducted only months before key Assembly elections, the SIR has raised serious questions about timing, legality, and voter citizenship verification.
• This controversy highlights deeper constitutional tensions between administrative discretion and democratic safeguards.

The Context and Nature of the SIR

• The SIR represents a comprehensive, door-to-door revision of electoral rolls involving enumeration, verification, and adjudication of claims and objections.
• The ECI justified this move by citing demographic changes caused by urbanisation, migration, and mortality since the last SIR in 2002–03.
• However, the Opposition and State governments criticised the haste and timing of the exercise, noting that a summary revision had already been completed in 2024.
• The Bihar Assembly election, preceded by a similar SIR, became the testing ground for these concerns, with opponents alleging that such massive revisions close to elections could disenfranchise voters and compromise electoral fairness.

The Legal Framework: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950

• The legal foundation for electoral roll revision is laid down in Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950, which distinguishes between two types of revisions:
• Revision before general elections: a summary revision, mandatory before every Lok Sabha or Assembly election.
• Revision in any year: an intensive revision, undertaken at the ECI’s discretion to ensure the accuracy of rolls.
• As per Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the former is summary in nature, while the latter is intensive, almost akin to preparing a new electoral roll.
• Therefore, intensive revisions are ideally delinked from election cycles, to be conducted when no imminent elections are due.

The Question of Timing and Administrative Discretion

• While the ECI’s authority to revise rolls is undisputed, its decision to conduct an SIR immediately before elections is deeply problematic.
• Between 2003 and 2024, India witnessed five general elections and numerous State polls, yet no such SIR was ordered.
• This sudden urgency raises concerns of opacity, haste, and potential bias.
• An intensive revision requires massive fieldwork, public verification, and time for appeals, all of which may be compromised under electoral deadlines.
• Such timing risks damaging public trust in the ECI, an institution whose credibility depends on both neutrality and perception of fairness.

The Central Controversy in the SIR: Citizenship Verification and Constitutional Boundaries

• Under Article 326, only citizens of India can be enrolled as voters.
• The ECI demanded documentary proof of citizenship but excluded Aadhaar, arguing that it does not establish nationality.
• However, the Supreme Court’s interim order directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as a valid proof of identity, if not citizenship, exposing a grey area between identity verification and nationality confirmation.
• This raises a fundamental constitutional question: Can the ECI independently determine which documents prove citizenship?
  The Constitution (Articles 5–11) and the Citizenship Act, 1955 vest this authority solely in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• Thus, the ECI’s unilateral specification of acceptable documents is ultra vires, beyond its legal authority.
• Since the MHA has not notified a definitive list of citizenship documents, the ECI’s improvisation creates legal ambiguity and risks arbitrary exclusion.
• Such action violates Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to fair procedure), as it can lead to unjust disenfranchisement.

Judicial Precedent and Democratic and Institutional Implications

• Judicial Precedent: The Lal Babu Hussein Case (1995)

  • The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lal Babu Hussein & Others v. Electoral Registration Officer & Others (1995) provides crucial precedent.
  • The Court observed that once a voter’s name is included in the roll, it must be presumed that all statutory procedures were followed.
  • Therefore, removal of names without strong legal justification is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

• Democratic and Institutional Implications

  • The SIR controversy transcends mere legality; it touches the moral and democratic essence of electoral governance.
  • The electoral roll is not just an administrative record; it is the foundation of popular sovereignty.
  • Any process that risks excluding legitimate citizens undermines the inclusiveness and integrity of Indian democracy.
  • The overlapping jurisdictions of the ECI and the MHA, combined with the absence of legislative clarity, create a vacuum of accountability.

Conclusion

• The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls exposes critical tensions between administrative autonomy and constitutional accountability.
• While the ECI’s intent to maintain accurate voter rolls is legitimate, the timing, scope, and procedural ambiguities of the SIR demand scrutiny.
• The absence of a defined legal framework for citizenship verification has led to institutional overreach and citizen vulnerability.
• Moving forward, both the Union Government and the ECI must ensure transparency, coordination, and fairness in electoral roll management.

The Infirmities in the SIR of Electoral Rolls FAQs

 Q1. What is the main controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
Ans. The main controversy is about the timing and legality of conducting an intensive revision just before elections, which critics say may lead to voter exclusion and constitutional violations.

Q2. Under which law does the Election Commission conduct electoral roll revisions?
Ans. Electoral roll revisions are conducted under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Q3. Who has the authority to determine documents proving Indian citizenship?
Ans. The Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission of India, has the authority to determine documents proving citizenship.

Q4. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Lal Babu Hussein case (1995)?
Ans. The Court held that once a person’s name is entered in the voter roll, it must be presumed valid, and removal without due process is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Q5. Why is the Special Intensive Revision considered risky for democracy?
Ans. It is considered risky because arbitrary deletions or document demands can disenfranchise legitimate voters, undermining the fairness and inclusiveness of elections.

Source: The Hindu

Exploited workers, A Labour Policy’s Empty Promises

Context

• An investigation into the seafood industry on India’s east coast revealed severe exploitation of women workers, who labour in unsafe conditions for meagre wages after being stripped of Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) benefits through reclassification as “daily wagers.”
• Despite such widespread abuse—amid an estimated 11 million people living in modern slavery, the highest in the world—the government’s new draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 claims to be “future-ready” and rooted in ancient Indian ethos.
• However, critics say it fails to address systemic worker exploitation or strengthen labour protections in today’s harsh employment realities.

A Case of ‘Employer Ease’ in India’s New Labour Policy

• Across India’s steel, textile, seafood, and quarry industries, millions of workers are hired informally through contractors, without written contracts or benefits.
• According to the ILO (2024), 90% of India’s workforce is informally employed, often denied legal rights, fair wages, and dignity, violating Articles 14, 16, and 23 of the Constitution.
• The draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 rebrands labour reform as “cultural revival,” critics say, prioritising “employer ease” over worker justice.
• Universal Social Security Without Funding Clarity
  • The policy proposes a Universal Social Security Account, merging schemes like EPFO, ESIC, PMJAY, e-SHRAM, and State boards to ensure lifelong health, pension, maternity, and accident benefits.
  • However, it lacks clarity on funding mechanisms, offering no employer or state contribution mandates, risking tokenistic coverage similar to e-SHRAM’s low payouts.
  • With digital-only access in a country where only 38% of households are literate, the model risks excluding women, elderly, and low-literates, breaching Article 15 on equality.
• Missing Safeguards for Collective Bargaining
  • The absence of union protections further weakens workers’ bargaining power.
  • Experts recommend offline access, tripartite funding (employer–state–worker), and union inclusion to prevent systemic exclusion and exploitation.
• Occupational Safety and Health: Lofty Goals, Weak Enforcement
  • The policy pledges to enforce the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.
  • It does so by the provsions of risk audits and gender-sensitive standards, honouring Directive 42 (state can make provision to secure just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief) and ILO Convention 155 (women’s care-role risks).
  • However, its “near-zero fatalities by 2047” goal seems unrealistic.
  • Without strong penalties, adequate inspectors, and coverage for informal and gig workers, workplace safety promises risk becoming symbolic.
  • Digital tools exclude informal workers, undermining equality; ignoring gig mental health, while union audits weaken Article 19.

Areas of Concern in the Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025

• AI-Driven Job Facilitation Risks Bias

  • The policy envisions the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) as an employment facilitator, using AI-driven job-matching under the National Career Service (NCS) to align skills and tackle graduate unemployment.
  • However, the absence of AI bias safeguards could lead to caste and gender discrimination, violating Article 15, especially in smaller cities and MSMEs.

• Gig Economy and Wage Code Gaps

  • The Wages Code’s minimum protections remain ignored for the 12 million gig workers, allowing “flexibility” to mask exploitation.
  • Without ethics audits and union oversight, algorithmic systems could deepen inequality and tech-driven labour abuse.

• Gender Equity Without Enforcement

  • The policy targets 35% female labour participation by 2030 through childcare, equal pay, flexible gigs, and apprenticeships — aligning with ILO Convention 195 and Article 15.
  • Yet, without quotas, penalties, or maternity protections for informal workers, the goal remains aspirational.
  • The neglect of caste-gender data and mental health issues also masks the barriers faced by Dalit and rural women.

• Green Transition Without Just Transition

  • The green-tech vision promotes AI-enhanced safety and reskilling for coal workers, aligning with SDG 13 and Article 21 (right to livelihood).
  • However, lacking income support and union inclusion, it risks violating ILO Convention 29.
  • An urban bias in green jobs could marginalise 400 million informal workers, demanding tripartite funding and OECD-standard safeguards.

• Weak Data and Privacy Governance

  • Plans to integrate labour, education, and digital governance through Labour and Employment Policy Evaluation Index (LEPEI) dashboards and Digital India may advance transparency, but poor enforcement of the Data Protection Act risks worker surveillance and curbs on Article 19 freedoms.

• Vision vs. Reality

  • The Shram Shakti Niti 2025 presents itself as a “rights-driven, future-ready” framework for Viksit Bharat.
  • However, its gaps — weak oversight, digital exclusion, unenforced penalties, and disregard for ILO standards — could accelerate the decline of unions and deepen inequality in the expanding gig economy.

Restoring Dignity, Rights, and Justice to India’s Workers

• The Shram Shakti Niti 2025 risks failing without adequate funding and institutional safeguards.
• For millions in informal and forced labour, the real test lies not in digital dashboards but in whether the policy can restore dignity, rights, and justice to the working poor.
• The 2025–47 implementation must include pilot projects, rights-based audits, tripartite enforcement, offline accessibility for digitally excluded workers, and transparent grievance systems.
• Without these, the policy risks becoming symbolic rhetoric rather than a genuine instrument of labour justice in India.

Exploited workers, A Labour Policy’s Empty Promises FAQs

Q1. What issue does the article highlight about India’s seafood industry?

Ans. It exposes exploitation of women workers in unsafe conditions, stripped of benefits and forced into informal labour, reflecting India’s broader modern slavery crisis.

Q2. What is the main criticism of the Shram Shakti Niti 2025?

Ans. Critics argue it prioritises “employer ease” and cultural revival over genuine labour reform, ignoring wage theft, safety, and workers’ constitutional rights.

Q3. How does the policy’s Universal Social Security plan fall short?

Ans. It merges welfare schemes digitally but lacks funding clarity, offline access, and employer contributions, risking exclusion of low-literate and informal workers.

Q4. What concerns exist around AI and job facilitation in the policy?

Ans. AI-based job matching lacks bias safeguards, risking caste and gender discrimination, particularly across MSMEs and smaller cities, violating equality principles.

Q5. What measures are needed to make the policy effective?

Ans. Experts recommend pilot projects, tripartite funding, offline access, rights-based audits, and stronger union participation to ensure genuine worker protection and justice.

Source: TH

‹ ›