Kerala parties oppose 'undemocratic' ECI's SIR; rare consensus across political fronts

According to the chief election commissioner, Kerala would be among 12 states and Union Territories to undergo the special revision, with the process set to begin on October 28, 2025. The Commissioner described the exercise as an effort to ensure the accuracy and integrity of voter rolls ahead of upcoming elections.

However, political parties in Kerala view it as a disruptive and unnecessary intervention that could lead to voter exclusion and administrative confusion.

Illogical, undemocratic: CPI(M)

In a strongly worded statement, the CPI(M) state secretariat alleged that the BJP-led Union government was “trying to subvert India’s democratic system by turning the Election Commission into a puppet.” The party urged the Centre to withdraw what it termed as an “attempt to undermine the country’s democratic system,” accusing it of “rushing” the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Kerala with “ulterior motives.”

According to the CPI(M), conducting the revision based on voter rolls from 2002–2004 could potentially disenfranchise more than 50 lakh voters.

“The Commission has ignored Kerala’s scientifically prepared voter list and frozen the existing rolls at midnight on Monday,” the statement said, denouncing the move as “illegal and undemocratic.”

Also read: Bihar storm yet to settle, mega political squall brews with EC’s pan-India SIR drive

The party further asserted that initiating the revision at a time when the state is gearing up for local body elections was “a deliberate attempt to interfere with the democratic process.”

Senseless, says KPCC president

KPCC president and MLA Sunny Joseph echoed the growing criticism, describing the Election Commission’s move as “unilateral and irrational.”

“It is senseless to begin this process when preparations for local body elections are under way. The Election Commission must reconsider its decision,” he said. Joseph pointed out that the Chief Electoral Officer had already written to the Central Election Commission highlighting the practical challenges raised by various political parties, but no response had been received.

“This effectively denies citizens their democratic right to vote,” he said. “It is unclear why people who have been on the rolls for 23 years are being asked to go through the registration process again.”

Rare consensus

LDF convener T P Ramakrishnan also condemned the Election Commission’s decision to proceed with the SIR of electoral rolls, calling it “deeply undemocratic.”

Reflecting the depth of political concern, the Kerala Legislative Assembly had unanimously passed a resolution urging the Election Commission to defer or withdraw the SIR on September 29. The resolution warned that proceeding with such an exercise on the eve of local body elections in 2025 and Assembly polls in 2026 would create uncertainty and undermine public trust in the electoral process.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, presenting the resolution, said the state government viewed the revision with “deep apprehension,” arguing that the ECI’s decision lacked adequate consultation and could have far-reaching implications. The Chief Minister noted that Kerala’s voter registration system was already robust and regularly updated through annual revisions, and that an abrupt, intensive exercise risked disenfranchising sections of voters.

Also read: Nationwide SIR: Why are Opposition parties worried and what next? | Interview

Leader of Opposition V D Satheesan echoed the government’s reservations, asserting that the Commission’s move was “untimely and unwarranted.” Both coalitions argued that the proposed timeline—given the upcoming local polls—was impractical and politically suspect.

Voter exclusion

The rare consensus stems from a shared perception that the SIR could become a tool for voter exclusion. Parties fear that the exercise’s documentation requirements, especially for those born after 2003, could inadvertently deny voting rights to citizens unable to produce proof of their parents’ citizenship.

Such provisions, they warned, would disproportionately affect marginalised communities, migrant workers, and the economically weaker sections of society.

Another layer of anxiety stems from the alleged parallels between the SIR and the controversial citizenship verification processes seen elsewhere in India. Several political leaders have publicly linked the revision to an indirect implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) framework, arguing that the insistence on parental citizenship proof mirrors the criteria used in those exercises.

Both LDF and UDF stressed that voter list management must not be conflated with citizenship verification. The parties also demanded that ration cards be accepted as valid identity documents, noting that the current list of approved papers was too narrow and could exclude genuine voters.

Procedural flaws

Beyond political apprehensions, Kerala’s leadership has pointed to several procedural flaws in the SIR framework. One key criticism is that the ECI has chosen to base the revision on electoral rolls from 2002 as a baseline reference. Officials and legislators alike argue that using a two-decade-old database is “unscientific,” given Kerala’s substantial demographic and migration changes since then.

Also read: EC to roll out SIR 2.0 in 12 states: Here are 12 things you need to know

Further, the Chief Electoral Officer of Kerala is reported to have advised deferring the SIR until after the completion of the 2025 local body elections. The recommendation cites practical reasons: the same officials involved in the revision process will later serve as returning officers during elections, potentially compromising neutrality and efficiency.

Adding to the uncertainty, the constitutional validity of the SIR itself is currently under judicial consideration. A case questioning the legality and scope of the Commission’s special revision powers is pending before the Supreme Court.

Kerala’s parties argue that proceeding with the exercise before the apex court’s verdict would be premature and could complicate the legal situation further.

Both the ruling and Opposition fronts have urged the ECI to postpone the revision until after the local body elections. They have also called for a wider consultation process involving state governments and civil society to ensure transparency and fairness. The broad consensus among Kerala’s political class is that while maintaining accurate voter rolls is important, it must not come at the cost of citizens’ rights or public confidence in the electoral machinery.