Former IAS, IFS officers defend Election Commission and SIR in an open letter

The Election Commission of India, or ECI, is the institution responsible for administering India’s elections. The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to review and update electoral rolls. It matters because elections depend on a reliable list of eligible voters. A clean roll should include genuine voters and remove entries that should no longer remain.

The former officials cited Bihar as an example. They said the SIR identified around 22 lakh deceased voters and 7 lakh duplicate entries. It also added about 21.5 lakh new voters. The exercise includes notices, hearings and appeals, with participation by political parties’ booth-level agents.

The article presents SIR as an election safeguard rather than merely an administrative task. The officials argued that an uncleaned roll does not protect voters, but protects fraudsters. They also said the Supreme Court scrutinised the exercise, prescribed additional safeguards and upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct it.

The 124 former officials rejected claims that Indian elections were being rigged without credible evidence. They said India had moved beyond an earlier era of booth capturing, ballot-box stuffing and electoral violence. In their view, today’s system contains several safeguards that make manipulation harder and allow election processes to be checked.

They pointed to polling agents, electronic voting machine sealing, strong-room security and VVPAT verification. They also cited Bihar’s 2025 Assembly elections, which recorded no re-polling and the highest voter turnout since 1951. These details were offered as evidence of a functioning process, not proof that every concern should be ignored.

The officials defended questioning as a citizen’s right, but said proving an allegation was the accuser’s duty. They also stressed that the same ECI had overseen defeats for the ruling party in several State elections and the loss of its parliamentary majority in 2024.

The figures cited by the former officials show the scale of Bihar’s electoral-roll exercise. They said officials identified around 22 lakh entries belonging to deceased voters and 7 lakh duplicate entries. They also said about 21.5 lakh new voters were added. Together, these figures describe both removal-related checks and expansion of the roll.

The purpose was to make the voter list more accurate before elections. Deceased entries should not remain available for possible misuse, while duplicate entries can create uncertainty about whether one person appears more than once. Adding new voters helps ensure that eligible people are represented on the roll.

The officials presented these numbers as a reason to support SIR. They argued that an uncleaned roll protects the fraudster rather than the voter. They also said the process included notices, hearings, appeals and participation by booth-level agents of political parties.

When a person’s eligibility or voter entry is questioned during the revision, the process does not simply end with removal, according to the former officials. They highlighted notices, hearings and appeals as safeguards. These steps give the affected person an opportunity to respond and provide a route for challenging a decision.

The officials also said political parties’ booth-level agents participate in the exercise. Their involvement adds another layer of scrutiny at the local level. In the article’s account, the process is therefore designed to test entries rather than rely on an unchecked administrative decision. The Supreme Court was also said to have examined the SIR and prescribed additional safeguards.

The broader consequence is a more accountable roll-revision process. The article does not specify the detailed legal test for every disputed entry or the outcome of individual cases. It does make clear that questioning an entry is linked to procedural protections, including notice, a hearing and an appeal.

The former officials used election outcomes to challenge claims that the ECI is fair only when a particular party wins. They argued that a system cannot be honest when one side wins and rigged when that side loses. Their point was that the institution and its procedures remain the same across different results.

They cited the ruling party at the Centre as an example. Under the same ECI, it had lost several State elections and its parliamentary majority in 2024. The officials presented these defeats as evidence that the Commission’s process does not automatically produce victories for the party in power.

This argument does not say that citizens cannot question elections. The officials explicitly said questioning is every citizen’s right. They added that proving an allegation is the accuser’s duty. Their broader message was that criticism should rely on credible evidence rather than on whether the final result is welcome.

Polling agents provide party-level observation at polling stations. EVM sealing helps show that voting machines were closed and protected after use. Strong-room security protects stored machines before counting. VVPAT verification adds a paper-based check alongside electronic recording. Together, these measures create multiple layers rather than relying on one control.

The article also identifies safeguards for electoral-roll revisions. Notices tell people that an entry is being questioned. Hearings allow responses, and appeals provide a way to challenge decisions. Political parties’ booth-level agents can participate, adding local scrutiny to the process. These mechanisms address both the voting process and the accuracy of the voter list.

The former officials used this layered structure to defend election integrity. They cited Bihar’s 2025 Assembly elections, which had no re-polling, and said the Supreme Court prescribed additional safeguards for SIR. The article presents these protections as ways to make elections more transparent and accountable.

An accurate electoral roll connects eligible citizens with the right to participate in elections. It should reflect genuine voters and avoid entries that no longer belong there. The former officials argued that an uncleaned roll does not protect the voter; it protects the fraudster. That makes roll accuracy a basic democratic safeguard.

The Bihar figures illustrate the issue. The officials said the review identified around 22 lakh deceased voters and 7 lakh duplicate entries, while adding about 21.5 lakh new voters. Deceased and duplicate records can create opportunities for misuse or confusion. Missing eligible voters can also prevent people from voting unless their entries are corrected.

The article says SIR includes notices, hearings, appeals and participation by political parties’ booth-level agents. These protections matter because corrections should be reviewable. The stated aim is a roll that better reflects the electorate, strengthens confidence and supports results that voters can trust.