TN SIR Row: DMK Accused of Double Standards Over Voter Roll Revision

The Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has led to a political controversy in Tamil Nadu, with the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) facing allegations of taking conflicting positions on the exercise.

While the DMK has moved the Supreme Court challenging the nationwide SIR process, opposition parties allege that the ruling party is simultaneously exerting influence over the revision work on the ground in Tamil Nadu. The opposition has accused the DMK of maintaining a dual stance-legally opposing SIR while actively participating in its implementation.

Opposition leaders claim that ruling party workers are interfering in voter verification, an administrative task meant to be carried out exclusively by election officials. They allege that such involvement has compromised the neutrality of the exercise.

What is the Special Intensive Revision?

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is empowered under law to prepare and revise electoral rolls. Revisions are undertaken before elections or when required to ensure accuracy. The Special Intensive Revision is conducted to address issues such as duplicate registrations, frequent migration and the continued presence of deceased voters' names on electoral lists.

The stated objective of SIR is to ensure that eligible voters are not left out while preventing ineligible names from remaining on the rolls. It also aims to eliminate multiple registrations of the same voter in different locations.

Allegations of interference in BLO duties

Opposition parties have alleged that DMK party agents are interfering in the functioning of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who are responsible for voter verification. According to the complaints, BLOs are being pressured to hand over forms to DMK-backed Booth Level Agents (BLAs).

In several areas, DMK agents are alleged to be distributing and collecting forms themselves. In some instances, they are accused of filling out the forms and submitting them to election officials. Opposition leaders claim this has effectively sidelined official machinery and allowed the ruling party to dominate the SIR process.

Formal complaints have reportedly been submitted to the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer and district election authorities. Leaders of the AIADMK, TVK and other opposition parties have approached the Election Commission, alleging that BLOs are being influenced by ruling party workers, resulting in a one-sided implementation. AIADMK leaders have said photographic evidence has also been provided.

The Election Commission and the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer have rejected these allegations. Officials have stated that no eligible voter can be removed without valid grounds and that BLOs cannot be directed by political parties. However, opposition parties maintain that the ruling party continues to exercise control at the field level.

Supreme Court case and observations

Amid these allegations, the DMK filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the nationwide SIR exercise. The court sought a response from the Election Commission and directed High Courts across the country not to hear similar petitions, bringing all related matters before the apex court.

The DMK argued that the SIR process violated Election Commission guidelines and could lead to the deletion of voters, particularly from marginalised sections of society.

However, during hearings related to the SIR exercise in Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's authority. The court observed that SIR was a special revision and not a routine update, and held that the ECI had the power to conduct such an exercise as long as it was fair and transparent.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Jayamalya Bagchi said procedural issues, if any, could be addressed, but the entire exercise could not be termed illegal. The court did not find the Bihar SIR process unlawful, thereby strengthening the Election Commission's position.

Impact of SIR in Tamil Nadu

The key aims of SIR include removing the names of deceased voters, eliminating duplicate and fake entries, deleting names of permanently migrated voters and adding eligible voters who were previously omitted.

In Chennai, officials said that during the initial phase of the revision, a significant number of entries were flagged due to deaths, migration or duplicate registrations. Migrated voters have been advised to re-register at their current addresses.

In Royapuram constituency, around 400 names are likely to be removed. A polling official in Old Washermanpet said nearly 400 out of 1,500 voters could not be traced, with several confirmed deaths and many having moved away. In parts of Shanmugarayan Street, officials said they were able to contact only a fraction of registered voters.

In West Jafferkhanpet, officials distributed verification forms to check 1,409 voters and identified hundreds of entries for possible deletion, including cases of death. Similar trends were reported in Chepauk, Virugambakkam and Velachery.

According to the Greater Chennai Corporation, which manages voter data for nearly 40 lakh residents, around 37 lakh verification forms have been distributed so far. Final deletions will be confirmed after verification is completed by Electoral Registration Officers.

In Tirunelveli district, officials said approximately 78,000 entries may be removed due to deaths, fake registrations and migration. District Collector Sukumar said the exercise would help ensure that the electoral roll remains accurate and updated.

Political reactions

Opposition parties have accused the DMK of politicising the SIR exercise by creating fear among voters instead of spreading awareness. They allege that the party has warned people that their names could be removed and that they may lose their right to vote.

While election officials and the Supreme Court have largely supported the SIR process, opposition parties continue to criticise the DMK for what they describe as a contradictory approach-challenging the exercise in court while allegedly controlling its implementation on the ground.