Over the past four months, a one-sided campaign of lies has been run in the name of this SIR- that is, Special Intensive Revision-and attempts have been made to mislead the people of the country. I would like to appeal to all the Members of this House, both from the Treasury and Opposition benches, that I have thoroughly studied the entire process of SIR, the constitutional provisions related to it, and all the SIRs that have taken place in the past. The Election Commission has been established under the Constitution of this country. It is a constitutional body. The Constitution clearly defines the structure of the Election Commission, its powers, the electoral process, the definition of a voter, and the provisions for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
I wish to state humbly that when these provisions were framed, our party did not even exist. Those who were present at that time discussed these matters in the Constituent Assembly and drafted the Constitution. The entire electoral process is elaborately explained in the Constitution itself. I now wish to clarify the differences between the system that existed then and the process being implemented today, as well as the present allegations. The Constitution has conferred on the Election Commission the responsibility to conduct “free and fair” elections. The preparation of the electoral rolls and their revision also fall under the Election Commission’s jurisdiction. Article 324 of Part XV of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission of India, the appointment of Election Commissioners, and grants the Commission full control over the conduct of elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the offices of the Vice President and President. In cases where there is more than one Election Commissioner.
The power to appoint one or more Election Commissioners is vested in the President. According to Article 325, no eligible voter can be excluded from the electoral roll, a provision has been made for it. Article 326 is particularly significant with respect to the “Special Intensive Revision” or SIR.
Constitutional Validity Of Voter Eligibility
What does Article 326 state? It establishes the qualifications and eligibility criteria for being a voter:
- First condition: The voter must be a citizen of India, not a foreign national. The Opposition asks why the Election Commission is undertaking this process well; this is its constitutional duty, and that is precisely why it is doing SO.
- Second condition: The person must be at least 18 years old of age
- Third condition: The third condition relates to the determination of eligibility, including circumstances such as mental incapacity and involvement in crime and corruption, as determined by law from time to time
Based on these three conditions, an individual’s right to vote in India is determined. Who is responsible for verifying these three criteria? It is the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner who hold that responsibility.
Article 327 empowers both Parliament and the Election Commission to make recommendations and enact laws regarding the preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies, and the conduct of elections.
Understanding Historical Context
Questions have now been raised about the SIR- why it is being conducted today. I would like to remind them of some history. There is a new tendency these days: whenever history is recounted, people say- “Please don’t tell us history.” But how can any process of any nation or society move forward without understanding its past? History is an inseparable part of every society. Our democratic history began in 1952.
- The first Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was conducted in 1952, when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, from the Congress Party, was the Prime Minister
- The second SIR took place in 1957, again under Prime Minister Nehru
- The third occurred in 1961, once again when Nehru was Prime Minister and the Congress Party were in power
- Another SIR was conducted in 1965-66, during the tenure of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, under a Congress government.
- In 1983-84, it took place under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
- In 1987-89, Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister.
- Further SIR exercises were held in 1992, 1993, and 1995, when P V Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister
- SIR was again undertaken in 2002 and 2003, during the tenure of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
- It was concluded in 2004, when Dr Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister.
- The SIR process of 2002-2004 was part of a single cycle, two years under the NDA government and one under the leadership of Dr Manmohan Singh.
- After 2004, the next SIR is now underway in 2025 and in 2026 under our government.
Until 2004, no political party ever opposed this process of Special Intensive Revision, because it is a measure to preserve the sanctity of elections and maintain the health of democracy. If the very voter list on which elections are based becomes distorted, how can the polls remain free and fair? Periodic intensive review of the voter rolls is essential. That is why the Election Commission decided to conduct one in 2025. I would also like to recall an incident. In 2010, an Election Commissioner decided that Returning Officers would no longer have the authority to delete names from the electoral rolls. Consequently, even after a voter’s death, their names were not removed. Similarly, when a person shifted from one area to another, their names often remained on both lists. For example, if an employee of the Government of India was transferred from Coimbatore to Shimla, their name appeared both in the Coimbatore and Shimla voter lists. This rule was introduced in 2010 when the Congress Party was in power.
The Concept And Purpose Of SIR
- To remove the names of deceased individuals from the rolls
- To add the names of those who have attained the age of 18 years;
- To delete duplicate entries where a person’s name appears in more than one constituency, and
- The names of foreign nationals will be deleted one by one. That is the process of SIR
Safeguarding Democracy
Can the democracy of any nation remain safe if those determining who will be the country’s Prime Minister or a State’s Chief Minister include infiltrators? Democracy cannot remain secure in such conditions. Should a single voter’s name appear in more than one location? Should a person have the right to vote in more than one constituency? Should the names of deceased persons continue to remain on the electoral rolls? SIR is nothing but the sanitisation and correction of the voter list. I understand that some political parties may find their vested interests affected by it. I even feel a kind of sympathy for them, because voters who are Indian do not vote for them, and the few foreign nationals who were voting for them will no longer do so now. As Indians, we must decide whether foreign citizens should have the right to vote in elections that choose our Parliament and State Legislatures. My humble view is – they should not.
Constitutional And Judicial Perspective
This is not merely a question of legal status. In the case of Lal Babu Hussain vs. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), the Supreme Court of India clearly ruled that the Returning Officer has the authority to verify whether an applicant seeking inclusion in the electoral roll is an Indian citizen or not. Therefore, those who ask how the Election Commission can decide this must understand-it is the Commission’s constitutional responsibility. This is not our assertion; it is the verdict of the Supreme Court, and we are all bound by it. Anyone wishing to verify this can refer to the Lal Babu Hussain vs. Electoral Registration Officer, 1995 judgment
SIR IS NOTHING BUT THE SANITISATION AND CORRECTION OF THE VOTER LIST. SOME POLITICAL PARTIES MAY FIND THEIR VESTED INTERESTS AFFECTED BY IT. I EVEN FEEL A KIND OF SYMPATHY FOR THEM, BECAUSE VOTERS WHO ARE INDIAN DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM-AND THE FEW FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO WERE VOTING FOR THEM WILL NO LONGER DO SO NOW
Examination Of Allegations And Facts
The Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, on November 5, 2025, dropped what he called a “atom bomb” during a press conference. He claimed that 501 votes were registered at a single house in Haryana. The Election Commission clarified that “House Number 265” is not a small house – it stands on a one-acre ancestral property occupied by multiple families. Separate house numbers were never assigned; hence all voter addresses read “House Number 265.” In Haryana, it has long been customary for multiple generations of the same family to live together. Therefore, it was neither a fake house nor a case of bogus voters.
Clarification Of Facts
- In Bihar, a voter aged 34 was shown as 124 years old in the electoral roll. This was due to an online entry error, which the voter, Smt. Minta Devi, herself admitted. Yet, on that basis, the entire voter list was questioned.
- Similarly, in Nawada, it was alleged that Subodh Kumar, a booth-level agent of a political party, was never included in the voter list-this too turned out to be false.
- In Rohtas, Smt. Ranju Devi alleged that Congress workers instigated her to claim that her name was arbitrarily deleted. Later, she herself stated that the information was incorrect
Through that press conference, a misleading atmosphere was created across the country. I have already explained the allegations and the truth. The Leader of the Opposition had said in the press conference that the voters’ list should be corrected. I wish to ask – is that not exactly what the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is? It is the process of correcting and updating the voter list. When we carry it out, you oppose it; and when elections are held with the old list, you still oppose it.
Congress Party Has A History Of “Vote Theft”
I wish to clearly define what vote theft actually means. In our country, some families have inherited the legacy of vote theft. Now there is an uproar about “vote theft.” There are three types of vote theft –
- When a person who is not eligible is still registered as a voter
- When someone wins an election through unethical means
- When a person occupies a position contrary to the people’s mandate.
All three of these constitute vote theft Now I want to mention three instances of vote theft. All three will be called vote theft. The first incident occurred soon after Independence. The decision on who would become Prime Minister was to be made on the basis of votes cast by the Provincial Congress Committees. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel received 28 votes, while Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru received only 2. Yet, Pandit Nehru became the Prime Minister. The second instance of “vote theft,” concerning the unethical capture of power, took place in Indira Gandhi’s election from Rae Bareli. Raj Narain took this matter to the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the election had not been conducted in accordance with the rules, and the Allahabad High Court ruled that Smt. Gandhi had violated the rules and declared her election void. That too was a major case of vote theft. Later, to cover up that very misconduct, a law was brought in Parliament stating that no case could be filed against a sitting Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition now asks why we have granted immunity to the Election Commissioners. I will explain this later – but please tell me, what will you say about the time when Smt. Indira Gandhi conferred immunity upon herself? Narendra Modi Ji has been made Prime Minister by the people of India – not by your mercy. The Leader of the Opposition alleges that we gave immunity to the Election Commissioners. That allegation is false. Even if we assume it were true, Indira Gandhi was the first to grant herself immunity. And when constitutional reforms were challenged later, a junior judge, fourth in seniority, was promoted to Chief Justice to ensure a favourable judgment. This is history. Who can deny it? Is no one teaching them? This history is recorded in the records of both Parliament and the courts. During the Emergency, people like Lalan Singh and thousands of others in Bihar fought to defend democracy and were imprisoned.The third case of vote theft concerns ineligible persons becoming voters. Recently, a case has reached a civil court in Delhi alleging that Sonia Gandhi Ji became a voter before acquiring Indian citizenship. I merely stated that such a case is pending before a court – now it is Sonia Gandhi who must respond there
CAN THE DEMOCRACY OF ANY NATION REMAIN SAFE IF THOSE DETERMINING WHO WILL BE THE COUNTRY’S PRIME MINISTER OR A STATE’S CHIEF MINISTER INCLUDE INFILTRATORS?
The New Trend Of Attacking The EC
Now a new pattern has emerged. I will not go into every detail, but allegations have been made against the Election Commission by Mamata Banerjee, M. K. Stalin, V. D. Satheesan, Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Tejashwi Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, V. Sivankutty, Hemant Soren, and Bhagwant Mann. Earlier, this was a habit confined mainly to the Congress Party but, as the saying goes, “proximity breeds influence” and now the entire “I.N.D.I. Alliance” has united in attacking the Election Commission.
The Election Commission is a constitutional body established to conduct elections with impartiality. Its authority comes not from any political party but from the Constitution itself through its specific Parts and Articles. It is a constitutional process. To cast aspersions upon it and to level baseless accusations does not damage the Commission’s image alone it tarnishes the image of Indian democracy across the world. You may believe you are attacking the Government’s reputation, but in reality, you are striking at the very dignity of Indian democracy.
For the Government, the only concern is – what does the Indian voter think? The voter knows full well that it is through their votes that this Government was formed. There is no doubt in their minds. You kept shouting “vote theft, vote theft,” and even held a “Save Infiltrators Yatra,” yet we won in Bihar with a two-thirds majority. This new practice that has emerged of maligning the Election Commission, maligning the electoral process, and maligning the electoral rolls whenever one fails to win an election-will not serve the interests of our democracy.
On Election Results and Continuing Allegations
During the tenure of this same Election Commission and this same Government, you (opposition) too have won several elections. We never complained then; rather, we sat within our party and analysed the results. For the sake of clarity, I would like to place some figures on record. In May 2014, Narendra Modi Ji became the Prime Minister of this country, and since then they have had objections. What all has the NDA won? Up to 2024-25, we have won a total of 44 elections; they too have won 30 elections in different Legislative Assemblies-winning in 30 places. Now the question is – if the voter list was corrupt, why did you take oath? Why did you contest the elections at all? Tell the people of this country. In Wayanad, from where Rahul Gandhi was elected, my party held a press conference and pointed out similar discrepancies in the electoral rolls, but they do not respond to this. We have also raised the issue of Amethi, but they do not respond to that either. If there are some small errors in the rolls, it is not appropriate to cite them as the reason for your defeat. At the end, I will explain why exactly they lose elections.
The Opposition’s Hypocrisy On The Reasons For Defeat
If anyone in the press asks a question, they say, “You are an agent of the BJP. If they lose a case, they level allegations against the judge. If they lose an election, they blame the EVMs. Now that the EVM argument no longer holds water, they have taken up the issue of ‘vote theft. They carried out a statewide march across Bihar on the issue of vote theft, yet they still lost. The reason for their defeat is neither the EVMs nor the electoral rolls; the reason for their defeat is their leadership.If these people believe that no one will question them-God forbid, I hope I am proven wrong; one day the workers of the Congress will demand accountability from them. Congress workers will ask them how they managed to lose so many elections. Since 2014, a pattern of their defeats has emerged. True, they have won some, but alongside, a steady tradition of defeat has continued as well. After that, they made the EVM their target. I want to tell the people of the country – who first introduced EVMs in India?
The Origin and Legality of EVMS
On March 15, 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, a legal amendment was passed to introduce Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). And now they are opposing the very EVM law brought by Rajiv Gandhi. When someone later challenged the use of EVMs, a two- judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2002, upheld the amendment as completely constitutional. Yet today, they refuse to respect either Rajiv Gandhi or the Supreme Court. In 1998, the Election Commission conducted a pilot test of EVMs in just 16 Assembly constituencies of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi. Hudda Ji, note how cautious that step was – it was a limited-scale trial. After all examinations, for the first time in 2004, Lok Sabha elections across the entire country were conducted using EVMs. The significance of 2004 lies in the fact that it was the year when EVMs were used on a wide scale for the first time and they won the election then. At that time, there was no talk or controversy about EVMs. There were no questions, no protests then. The entire 2009 general election was also conducted through EVMs, and they won again – maintaining complete silence. But when we won in 2014, the whining began.
What kind of mindset is this? You brought the law, you introduced the machines, you won the first election using the machines, and you ruled comfortably for ten years-then everything was fine. But when you lost, you started crying. The people of the country know everything.
- On December 4, 2025, Madras High Court Judge Swaminathan ruled in favour of Hindus in a case involving a temple and a dargah, after which the INDIA alliance initiated impeachment proceedings against him
Second, when even the Election Commission felt that allegations were being made, a research process was undertaken on this issue. After five years of research, the VVPAT was introduced. What is VVPAT? When I press the button to cast my vote, if I select the lotus symbol, a slip comes out stating that my vote has been registered for the lotus symbol. Even then, allegations were made that the slip and the electronic record differ. The Election Commission then decided that the results of 5% of the EVMs and VVPATs would be matched. When an EVM was opened and it showed 396 votes, the VVPAT slips were checked to see whether they also showed 396 votes. This matching was performed on 5 per cent of the machines. Even then, allegations were made that the slip and the electronic record differ. The Election Commission then decided that the results of 5 per cent of the EVMs and VVPATs would be matched. When an EVM was opened and it showed 396 votes, the VVPAT slips were checked to see whether they also showed 396 votes. This matching was done in five per cent of the machines.
I want to say that after asking the Election Commission for some figures on how many VVPATs and EVMs have not matched. So far, the EVMs and VVPATs of thousands of booths have been matched, and the results show no discrepancy. At the time of counting, their polling agents are present there. They sign the results. They also sign the EVM and VVPAT results. Yet they are making allegations on this.
During vote counting, their polling agents sign the records themselves. Everything is transparent. Even then, they keep making allegations continuously. When allegations of tampering arose in 2009, the Election Commission placed 100 machines in 10 states and said, “Anyone may try.’ No one was able to tamper with them. In 2017, the Commission even invited all political parties and kept the EVMs in the open for three days. It said that anyone who wished could hack them and demonstrate it. But they did not go to court; they only held press conferences and kept making allegations. I know Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally, from 2001 till today, he has not taken a single day’s leave. He remains continuously devoted to public service. I have never seen him take a vacation. When we try to keep pace with him, even our blood pressure rises.
Contribution Towards Electoral Reforms
This entire discussion was supposed to be about electoral reforms. I had an inspection conducted at the Election Commission this morning did not seek any confidential information, but simply to ask: since May 2014, which parties have given appeal for election reforms? The process of electoral reform is as follows – the Election Commission consults all political parties, and then sends its consolidated proposals to the Ministry of Law, which drafts a Bill and presents it to Parliament. I thought, given the uproar they create, the Congress must have submitted several suggestions. But to my surprise, since May 2014 till date, the Congress Party has not submitted even a single proposal on electoral reforms to the Election Commission.
I stand by my statement. Since the formation of the Narendra Modi government, the Congress party has not sent a single proposal related to election reforms to the Election Commission. They have met the Election Commission several times and held press conferences, but the issues they raised were only intended to influence ongoing elections. Election reforms, on the other hand, are a different matter: before elections, when the rules for the elections are being set, all parties are formally notified in writing, and if any party makes a request, they are given time to respond. These are two entirely different things.
SINCE THE FORMATION OF THE NARENDRA MODI GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS PARTY HAS NOT SENT A SINGLE PROPOSAL RELATED TO ELECTION REFORMS TO THE ELECTION COMMISSION
Detect, Delete And Deport
Their policy is to normalise infiltration, then legitimise it, and formalise it by adding names to the voter list during elections. But this cannot continue for long. I personally believe, and my party has clear principles, that such a massive demographic change is a very serious threat to the country. This country has already been divided once on demographic grounds. We do not want future generations to witness another partition of this country. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to stop infiltration in this country.
They ask that if infiltration is taking place, is it not the responsibility of the Government of India? I want to say that infiltration is happening through the India- Bangladesh border. I want to say that infiltration is happening through the India-Bangladesh border. In West Bengal, this border is a total of 2,216 kilometres long, of which fencing has been completed along 1,653 kilometres. On the India-Bangladesh border, fencing over a large portion remains incomplete in only one state West Bengal. In Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, and Gujarat, the fencing has been completed. It is stalled only in Bengal. Today, I want to say to my colleagues from the TMC: when political parties took out the so-called “Save the Infiltrators Yatra” with Rahul ji, the people of Bihar responded with a two-thirds majority, and they were wiped out. If you also protect infiltrators, then there too the victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party is certain.
When you stop border construction and fencing, how will infiltration stop? An infiltrator first enters a village. Does the patwari not know? Does the station officer not come to know? Where is his Aadhaar card made to get his name included in the voter list? In Bengal. Where is the ration card made? In Bengal. Where is the name added to the voter list? In Bengal. Do you have no responsibility at all? This is a matter of national security, not elections. You may win elections on the basis of infiltration, but you cannot play with the security of the nation. The people of Bihar have taken a great decision by responding to the “Save the Infiltrators Yatra” with their mandate, and the same will happen in Bengal.
(The article is based on Home Minister Amit Shah’s address on ‘Election Reforms’ in Parliament on December 10)
