Dushyant Dave: SIR Electoral Roll Disenfranchisement Harms Voters

• Former Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave criticized the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating it has disenfranchised millions of voters.
• Dave and his wife reportedly received notices questioning their inclusion in the voter list, highlighting personal risk of losing voting rights.
• He attributed the potential loss of adult franchise to the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court's decision to allow the SIR to continue.
• Dave also alleged "startling levels of corruption" within the upper echelons of the Indian judiciary, claiming it enables the rich and powerful to manipulate the system.
• He stated that influential parties frequently receive expedited hearings and favorable judgments, undermining justice.

The scale of the alleged disenfranchisement, impacting "crores" of voters, points to a systemic issue that demands urgent attention and scrutiny from legal practitioners and civil society alike.

Former Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who retired from the legal profession in July 2025, recently voiced significant concerns regarding the integrity of India's electoral process, specifically criticizing the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Speaking at the annual KM Bashir Memorial Lecture in Kerala, Dave asserted that a decision by the Supreme Court, which permitted the continuation of this revision process, has effectively stripped millions of citizens of their voting rights. His remarks underscore a growing apprehension about the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), drawing attention to recent reports that highlight potential systemic issues.

Dave emphasized the personal impact of these revisions, revealing that he and his wife have both received official notices questioning their eligibility for inclusion in the voter list. This personal experience illustrates the broad reach of the SIR process, suggesting that even prominent legal figures are not immune to the risk of disenfranchisement. He directly attributed the potential erosion of adult franchise in India to the actions of both the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, arguing that the SIR mechanism is being used in a manner that jeopardizes fundamental voting rights.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is designed to update and purify voter lists, but Dave's critique suggests it is having an adverse effect, leading to widespread disenfranchisement rather than ensuring accurate representation. His comments imply that the process, as currently implemented and overseen by the ECI and sanctioned by the Supreme Court, may be inadvertently or intentionally excluding eligible voters. This raises critical questions about the robustness and fairness of India's electoral administration, particularly concerning the protection of fundamental voting rights.

The legal community, especially lawyers advising on electoral law or public interest litigation in India, should take note of these strong criticisms. The allegations against the SIR process highlight potential grounds for challenging voter disenfranchisement, offering insights that could inform future legal strategies or policy advocacy aimed at safeguarding adult franchise in India. The scale of the alleged disenfranchisement, impacting "crores" of voters, points to a systemic issue that demands urgent attention and scrutiny from legal practitioners and civil society alike.

Beyond the electoral process, Dushyant Dave also leveled serious accusations concerning the state of the Indian judiciary, claiming to have witnessed "startling levels of corruption" within its upper echelons. Drawing on his 48 years of experience as a lawyer practicing within the judicial system, he acknowledged the presence of "outstanding judges" but lamented the existence of "so many corrupt judges" in the Supreme Court that he had "lost count." He contended that this pervasive corruption has inflicted "great damage to justice" in the country.

The former senior advocate further elaborated on the consequences of this alleged manipulation, noting that cases involving wealthy and influential parties are often heard with unusual speed and consistently result in successful outcomes for them. He pointed to frequent newspaper reports detailing how large industrial houses regularly obtain favorable judgments, sometimes as often as every second or third day, as evidence of this systemic bias. This pattern, he argued, undermines public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Dave's dual critique — concerning both the alleged disenfranchisement through the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the pervasive corruption within the judiciary — paints a concerning picture for the health of India's democratic institutions. His statements suggest that fundamental pillars of democracy, including fair elections and an impartial justice system, are facing significant challenges. These assertions call for rigorous examination and highlight the urgent need for reforms to uphold the principles of adult franchise and ensure equitable access to justice for all citizens.

Lawyers advising on electoral law or public interest litigation in India should note the strong criticisms against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, as these highlight potential grounds for challenging voter disenfranchisement and could inform future legal strategies or policy advocacy.

Source: Based on recent legal commentary.