[Answered] Analyze the systemic challenges of retrospective citizenship verification highlighted by the resistance to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Evaluate the necessity of a prospective, inclusive mechanism to ensure that the burden of proof does not lead to the disenfranchisement of genuine citizens.

Introduction

In 2025–26, resistance to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exposed structural flaws in retrospective citizenship verification, threatening universal adult suffrage amid weak documentation, migratory realities, and constitutional limits of electoral governance.

Retrospective Citizenship Verification: A Systemic Mismatch

1. Documentation Deficit in a Low-Record Society: Retrospective citizenship verification assumes the availability of historical records. However, universal birth registration in India crossed 90% only after 2015 (CRS Report, RGI). Large sections—informal workers, women, Dalits, Adivasis, migrants—lack legacy documents such as pre-1987 birth certificates or parental records. This converts citizenship from a status by birth and belonging into a paper-based privilege, violating substantive equality.
2. Burden of Proof and Structural Exclusion: Under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the individual. When imported into electoral processes via SIR, this creates a procedural violence (Amartya Sen) where poverty and illiteracy become grounds for exclusion. showed that even ex-servicemen, widows, and flood-displaced citizens were excluded Assam’s NRC experience due to minor discrepancies—illustrating how error-intolerant systems harm genuine citizens.
3. Administrative Overreach and Role Confusion: The Election Commission’s mandate under Article 324 is limited to preparing electoral rolls, not determining citizenship—a power vested in the Union Executive under the Citizenship Act, 1955. RTI replies indicating absence of formal decision-making records for SIR raise concerns of institutional opacity and arbitrariness, undermining public trust in a constitutionally protected body.
4. Street-Level Bureaucracy Under Strain: House-to-house enumeration places quasi-judicial responsibilities on Booth Level Officers (often schoolteachers). Resignations and protests from officials, such as in West Bengal, reflect bureaucratic fatigue and ethical resistance to enforcing logically flawed procedures—echoing Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucrats facing moral dilemmas in policy implementation.

Why Retrospective Verification Undermines Democracy

1. Disproportionate Costs for Marginal Gains: Estimates of illegal migrants range between 12–15 million (≈1% of population), yet SIR risks disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters. From a public policy lens, this violates the principle of proportionality, recognised by the Supreme Court in Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016).
2. Erosion of Universal Adult Suffrage: The Constitution treats voting as a core democratic right. As PUCL v. Union of India (2003) affirmed, electoral participation is integral to democratic choice. Mass exclusions due to documentation failures hollow out political equality, especially in migrant-heavy urban and border regions.

The Case for a Prospective, Inclusive Citizenship Architecture

1. Prospective Civil Registration Integration: A shift towards systems-based governance is essential. Linking the Civil Registration System (CRS) with electoral rolls can enable automatic, provisional voter inclusion, activated at 18—similar to population registries in Nordic democracies.
2. Presumption of Citizenship: For individuals already on electoral rolls across multiple election cycles, a presumption of regularity should apply. Any challenge must place the burden on the State, aligning with principles of natural justice and reducing wrongful exclusions.
3. Residency-Based Naturalisation Window: A one-time prospective amendment to the Citizenship Act can grant citizenship through simplified naturalisation to long-term residents (2–3 years), unless declared foreigners by due process. This mirrors jus domicilii principles and honours India’s civilisational tradition of assimilation.
4. Community Verification and Social Audits: Gram Sabha–based verification of residency provides contextual legitimacy, especially where paper trails fail. Such participatory governance aligns with Gandhian decentralisation and reduces bureaucratic arbitrariness.

Conclusion

As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted, constitutional processes must remain humane; echoing Maneka Gandhi, India must choose inclusive, prospective citizenship systems to preserve democratic legitimacy and the moral core of universal suffrage.