In a significant revelation, Right to Information (RTI) activists in Ahmedabad have brought to light crucial procedural changes in how the Election Commission of India (ECI) manages the crucial task of updating voter lists. A detailed comparison between the processes followed in 2002 and the ongoing exercise in 2025 shows a fundamental shift in responsibility from government officials to individual voters.
From Enumerator Accountability to Voter Responsibility
The activists highlighted that the core philosophy of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has undergone a transformation. In the 2001-02 revision, then termed 'Special Revision of Intensive Nature', the enumerator (government official) was legally responsible for updating the voter lists. Their duty was to ensure all eligible citizens were included. In stark contrast, the ongoing 2025 SIR places the entire onus on voters themselves to establish and verify their presence on the electoral rolls.
RTI activist Santoshsinh Rathod, who obtained the comparative data from the ECI, explained the earlier system's thoroughness. "The primary objective of the SIR in 2002 was to include as many voters as possible," Rathod stated. He noted that confirmation of residence was simpler, often accepted through documents like a registered post letter delivered to the registered address.
Key Procedural Differences Unveiled
The analysis points to several specific changes. The 2002 process maintained three distinct registers to capture different types of amendments:
- A register for correcting voter details like name spellings.
- A register for individuals who possessed an Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) but whose names were missing from the rolls.
- A register for voters who had moved out of a constituency.
Importantly, the 2002 SIR had provisions for making all kinds of amendments to voter details, a facility that activists say is absent in the current process. Furthermore, Rathod added that the old system did not require voters to provide details of family members if their own name was missing—a clause that can be present now.
BLOs vs Enumerators: A Shift in Role and Accountability
Pankti Jog, the state coordinator for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), emphasized the accountability gap. She explained that in 2002, the enumerator was personally responsible for noting down proposed changes in the voter's presence, providing a carbon copy as receipt. "In this SIR, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are not accountable for any changes a voter makes in his or her details," Jog said. She clarified that in the ongoing revision, BLOs primarily fill out forms during special camps, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy and follow-through rests with the citizen.
This shift marks a move from a proactive, government-led inclusion drive to a system reliant on voter initiative and awareness. Activists argue that while empowering citizens is positive, the reduced institutional accountability could potentially lead to the exclusion of eligible voters, particularly those from less literate or marginalized communities who may find the process daunting.
