Election Commission SIR announcement LIVE Updates: How often has the ECI revised electoral rolls intensively, and what were the circumstances of those earlier exercises?
Intensive revisions of electoral rolls, in all or some parts of the country, have been undertaken earlier in 1952-56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Each revision has reflected the ECI’s evolving priorities — from correcting early administrative flaws to addressing migration, delimitation, and concerns over the quality of the rolls.
In the first decade after Independence, the overriding priority was to fix the rolls used for the 1951-52 Lok Sabha election, which were riddled with inaccuracies and omissions. The Commission’s narrative report of the first election noted that “the final electoral rolls were not always as accurate and satisfactory as might have been desired”.
It attributed these flaws to multiple factors: widespread public ignorance, limited organisational capacity among political parties, and inexperience in the government machinery.
One striking example was the mass exclusion of women before the first Lok Sabha election — many women refused to give their names to enumerators, and instead identified themselves only as “wife of” or “daughter of”.
Political parties, which at the time lacked both structure and familiarity with the electoral process, did not actively assist election officials. This is unlike today, where they appoint agents to aid in the preparation of the rolls.
The situation was further complicated by the absence of an electoral law in the early years, the late establishment of a central supervisory authority, and the lack of time to carry out a thorough verification.
To address these systemic shortcomings, the ECI launched a phased, rotating intensive revision strategy: one-fifth of each state was covered annually between 1952 and 1956 before the next Lok Sabha election in 1957, followed by one-third each year from 1957 to 1961 before the 1962 election, with particular attention to urban and migrant-heavy constituencies that were known for higher rates of voter movement and errors.
Administrative events like the reorganisation of states in 1956 and the delimitation exercises in the 1960s made fresh revisions of the rolls necessary.
By the 1980s, there was a growing focus on preventing the inclusion of ineligible voters, particularly foreign nationals, in the electoral roll — even as the emphasis on guarding against duplicate entries continued.
The ECI began to issue intensive revision guidelines, with specific instructions on “safeguards against inclusion of foreign nationals” — a reflection of concerns that had started to surface in the political discourse.
During this period, the Commission received multiple complaints from Chief Ministers of border states, especially in the Northeast, alleging that significant numbers of foreign nationals had managed to get themselves enrolled as voters.
The ECI at this time firmly articulated the principle that names that were already included in the electoral roll should not be deleted without following due process.
Officers were instructed to uphold the “sanctity” of the existing roll, especially when objections were raised about an elector’s citizenship status. The Commission made it clear that the burden of proof lay with the person objecting to the inclusion, and not with the elector whose name was already on the roll.
In 1993 and 1995, the ECI again ordered countrywide intensive revisions. Although 1993 was the year when Elector’s Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) were introduced under Rule 28 of the Registration of Electors Rules, ECI records from that time do not indicate that EPIC was the purpose of the revision.
Instead, the records note that EPIC details were “also captured” — suggesting that the field verification process of the revision helped facilitate, but was not driven by, the rollout of the photo ID.
Over time, as the quality of the rolls improved and administrative costs increased, the Commission gradually moved towards summary revisions as the default.
But whenever accuracy became a serious concern — due to demographic shifts, political complaints, or structural changes — the ECI returned to intensive methods, adapting them to the needs of that moment.