Like Kerala, T.N. government should pass resolution in State Assembly to scrap SIR, says CPI (M) politburo member

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a thorough review of electoral rolls. It is intended to check voter details, add eligible citizens, correct errors, and remove entries that are duplicated, invalid, or no longer applicable. Accurate rolls help elections reflect eligible voters.

The article does not describe the SIR procedure in detail. It reports that CPI (M) leader G. Ramakrishnan accused the BJP-led Union government of using SIR to delete around 13.5 crore voters. He also demanded re-enrolment for voters removed from the rolls.

The issue matters because removal from a roll can prevent a person from voting unless the entry is restored. Ramakrishnan wants Tamil Nadu’s Assembly to pass a resolution scrapping SIR. The article presents Kerala’s unanimous Assembly resolution as a model. Specific safeguards used during SIR are not covered in the source.

CPI (M) politburo member G. Ramakrishnan asked the Tamil Nadu government to oppose the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He said Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay should introduce and adopt a resolution in the State Legislative Assembly demanding that SIR be scrapped.

Ramakrishnan also called for the re-enrolment of voters whose names were deleted. His demand links the proposed resolution to a practical remedy: restoring people to the electoral rolls. He made the remarks after attending a free medical camp for construction workers in Vellore town.

The request places the Tamil Nadu Assembly at the centre of the response described in the article. Ramakrishnan pointed to Kerala, where ruling and opposition parties reportedly passed a similar resolution unanimously. He wants Tamil Nadu to take comparable action against SIR and support voter re-enrolment.

Ramakrishnan alleged that around 13.5 crore voters had been deleted from electoral rolls across India through the Special Intensive Revision process. This is the largest figure highlighted in the report and explains why he is demanding political action in Tamil Nadu.

He blamed the BJP-led Union government for using SIR in this way. The article does not provide a state-by-state breakdown, supporting documents, or an independent verification of the 13.5-crore figure. It presents the number as Ramakrishnan’s allegation during his interaction with reporters.

Ramakrishnan said opposition parties, except the BJP, had united in demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. He also sought re-enrolment for deleted voters. His proposed Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution would therefore both oppose SIR and address the alleged loss of voter registrations.

Kerala’s Legislative Assembly reportedly passed a resolution demanding the scrapping of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The resolution was passed unanimously, according to Ramakrishnan. It represents a formal legislative objection to the revision process described in the report.

The example is notable because both sides of Kerala’s Assembly supported it. The article says the ruling Congress and opposition parties led by the Left Front joined in passing the resolution. Ramakrishnan wants Tamil Nadu to follow this approach by adopting its own resolution against SIR.

The Kerala action is presented as a political and institutional example, not as a detailed account of the resolution’s text. For Tamil Nadu, Ramakrishnan proposes a resolution that would scrap SIR and seek re-enrolment for voters deleted from electoral rolls. The article does not report whether Tamil Nadu has adopted such a resolution.

If a person’s name is removed from the electoral roll, that person may not be allowed to vote in an election. The roll is the official record used to identify eligible voters. Without an entry, a voter can lose access to the ballot even if they believe they remain eligible.

The article connects this risk directly to Ramakrishnan’s demand for re-enrolment. He alleged that around 13.5 crore voters were deleted through SIR across India. He asked the Tamil Nadu government to seek restoration for voters removed from the rolls, alongside a resolution scrapping SIR.

The immediate consequence described by the article is potential disenfranchisement through deletion. Re-enrolment could restore a person’s place on the roll, but the report gives no timetable or procedure for doing so. It also does not state how many people have actually been prevented from voting. The broader implication is that roll revisions can affect participation.

The Election Commission of India is responsible for supervising electoral rolls and conducting elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. It sets procedures, publishes roll revisions, and oversees election administration. These responsibilities are part of India’s established electoral system, though the article focuses mainly on the political dispute over SIR.

State governments support election administration through local officials and machinery. They can help with field-level verification, public notices, and voter services under the Election Commission’s direction. State Legislative Assemblies do not ordinarily run elections directly, but they can debate electoral issues and pass resolutions expressing demands, as Kerala reportedly did.

In this case, Ramakrishnan wants Tamil Nadu’s government and Assembly to oppose SIR and seek re-enrolment of deleted voters. He also says opposition parties, except the BJP, demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The article does not detail the legal effect of either demand.

Accurate electoral rolls are essential because representative democracy depends on eligible voters being able to cast ballots. If names are wrongly removed, people may lose their political voice. If entries are wrongly duplicated or included, confidence in election results can suffer. The article’s dispute shows why roll revisions matter.

Common safeguards include publishing draft rolls, inviting claims and objections, checking documents and addresses, conducting local verification, correcting errors, and allowing appeals. Election officials may also compare records to identify duplicates or ineligible entries. These checks aim to prevent both wrongful inclusion and wrongful exclusion.

The source does not describe which safeguards were used during the SIR discussed. It reports Ramakrishnan’s allegation that around 13.5 crore voters were deleted and his demand for re-enrolment. Kerala’s reported unanimous resolution and the proposed Tamil Nadu resolution show that electoral-roll accuracy has become a legislative and political issue.