Presumed guilty, SIR’s spreading stain

Four booths in one district of Jharkhand do not a national election make. But as an investigation by this newspaper has shown, their story is emblematic of how the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls continues to raise troubling questions. In at least four booths in Godda, a stand-off between election officials and BJP workers has thrown up a disturbing pattern: Of BJP workers submitting Form 7s in bulk, seeking deletion of names from the draft rolls. Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 7 allows an objection to a proposed inclusion, an existing name, or a request for deletion. The red flags here are unmistakable — bulk objections by BJP workers do not merely invite accusations of procedural violation, they raise the graver concern of targeted deletion of minority voters. Many of those marked for deletion had submitted the required documents, lived in the same house for generations, or were mapped onto the 2003 rolls. An inquiry has been ordered after this newspaper’s report but that cannot be the end of the matter. For, across states, the SIR increasingly looks designed not to clean rolls but to harass, and in the process, disenfranchise the vulnerable voter. It is distrustful of her, it asks her to establish belonging, or, more correctly, counter the accusation of unbelonging that is implicit in the exercise.

Nationwide, the SIR has resulted in 13 crore deletions. This, after it shifts the burden of proof onto the voter, demands documents that are often difficult to access, sets unrealistic deadlines and, in doing so, makes the process itself the punishment. This must be owned by the Election Commission under the watch of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Some of the responsibility, with due respect, also lies with the Supreme Court. Yes, the Court intervened to ease the burden on Bihar’s voters — directing the EC to accept Aadhaar, nudging it toward giving reasons for deletion. Its record of protecting the EC’s institutional autonomy has been formidable in the past. But this time, institutional respect has given way to abdication. It has given the EC the benefit of every doubt, it has not asked of it the questions it needed to. In West Bengal, it contributed to the exercise piling up new layers, with the deployment of micro-observers, judicial officers, a bulky “under adjudication” list, and 19 appellate tribunals with no deadline after being set up too late. The Bengal appellate process goes on after the election is over. Those excluded remain in the dark about what comes next. Will it be detention, deportation, denial of benefits, prolonged litigation, or reapplication?

Overall Analysis

The editorial strongly criticises the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that the process is increasingly placing an unfair burden on ordinary voters, particularly vulnerable and minority communities.

The opening sentence, “Four booths in one district of Jharkhand do not a national election make,” begins with a note of caution. The writer acknowledges that a limited incident cannot by itself prove a nationwide problem. However, the phrase “their story is emblematic” immediately broadens the argument: these four booths are presented as an example of a much larger concern. This is an effective editorial technique — moving from a specific incident to a systemic argument.

The writer then describes BJP workers allegedly submitting Form 7 applications in bulk to delete voters’ names. Words such as “disturbing pattern,” “red flags,” “graver concern,” and “targeted deletion” create a sense of seriousness and suspicion. The author contrasts the legitimate purpose of electoral-roll revision with what the editorial believes is its harmful implementation. The phrase “not to clean rolls but to harass” uses a sharp contrast to communicate the author’s central criticism.

One of the strongest linguistic choices appears in the sentence “it asks her to establish belonging.” Here, the electoral process is personified as something that distrusts the citizen. The subsequent phrase, “counter the accusation of unbelonging,” is particularly powerful because it reverses the normal democratic assumption: instead of the state proving that a voter is ineligible, the voter is being made to prove that they belong.

The second paragraph shifts from the specific Jharkhand case to the national consequences of SIR. The author uses statistics — “13 crore deletions” — to establish scale, and then builds a cumulative argument through a series of verbs: “shifts,” “demands,” “sets,” “makes.” This creates a sense of an increasingly burdensome process. The memorable phrase “makes the process itself the punishment” is a metaphor that suggests that even before a person is actually excluded, the bureaucratic procedure becomes a form of harassment.

The editorial then turns its criticism towards both the Election Commission and the Supreme Court. The phrase “with due respect” is a formal and diplomatic expression, but what follows is sharply critical: “institutional respect has given way to abdication.” The writer argues that excessive deference towards an institution can become a failure to hold it accountable.

The final portion uses a series of rhetorical questions — “Will it be detention, deportation, denial of benefits, prolonged litigation, or reapplication?” This ending is deliberately unsettling. Instead of providing a resolution, the writer leaves the reader with uncertainty about the fate of excluded voters. The sequence of possibilities also creates a rhetorical crescendo, making the consequences appear progressively more serious.

Overall, the editorial’s language combines legal vocabulary, statistics, metaphor, contrast, personification and rhetorical questions. It is not merely reporting an electoral controversy; it is constructing an argument that democratic participation becomes threatened when the burden of proving citizenship or belonging is unfairly transferred to the voter.

Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Emblematic – representative or symbolic of a larger situation.
2. Disenfranchise – to deprive someone of their right to vote.
3. Abdication – failure to perform a responsibility or duty.
4. Formidable – very strong, impressive or difficult to challenge.
5. Tribunal – a body established to examine and decide particular legal or administrative disputes.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that electoral-roll revision should protect the integrity of elections without making genuine voters prove their belonging through an unnecessarily difficult process. It particularly warns against the possibility of vulnerable voters being excluded through procedural burdens, and calls for greater accountability from the Election Commission and judicial institutions.

Tone: Critical, concerned, accusatory and strongly cautionary.

Key language takeaway: The editorial is a good example of how an opinion writer moves from one concrete incident → wider systemic concern → institutional criticism → an emotionally powerful rhetorical ending.