Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Challenges of Electoral Inclusion and the Crisis of Citizenship in Manipur

General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.

Context

The cornerstone of a democracy rests on a transparent, fair, and all-inclusive electoral roll. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) program recently launched by the Election Commission of India (ECI) is an administrative process aimed at purifying the voter list. Currently, this program is being implemented in various phases across the country, which, despite being driven by the objective of administrative reforms, is raising serious concerns regarding inclusion in border states and conflict-ridden areas.

What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an intensive and comprehensive process undertaken by the Election Commission to update the electoral roll, under which old lists are re-evaluated. Its major dimensions are as follows:

• Verification Process: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) conduct physical verification of voters by going door-to-door.
• Documentary Certification: Intensive cross-matching of legal documents related to voters' names, permanent addresses, and identities is conducted.
• Deletion of Erroneous Names: Actions are taken as per rules to remove the names of suspicious, displaced, incomplete-information-holding, or long-absent citizens from the voter list.

Reasons for Discussion

• Implementation of Phase 3: The Election Commission is currently conducting the third phase of this campaign in 16 states and Union Territories, including Manipur.

• Administrative Experience of Previous Phases: In previous phases (especially in Bihar and West Bengal), allegations arose that due to administrative haste and errors, millions of valid voters  particularly those from minority and marginalized communities were removed from the list.
• Concerns of International Human Rights Bodies: UN human rights experts have also written to the Government of India expressing deep concern over alleged bias against minorities and large-scale disenfranchisement during the SIR process.
• Specific Circumstances of Manipur: In Manipur, which has been facing internal crisis and displacement for three years, civil society organizations have questioned the practical relevance of implementing such a complex process in the same manner as under normal circumstances.

Why is SIR in Manipur Different from Other States?

The specific ground and socio-political realities of Manipur turn this administrative process into an extremely sensitive humanitarian and administrative challenge:

• Severe Ethnic Conflict: The state has been facing a deep social division and conflict among the Meitei, Kuki-Zo, and Naga communities for the past three years. Ensuring administrative neutrality in such a polarized environment is a major challenge.
• Internal Displacement: Due to the conflict, approximately 60,000 people are displaced from their native places, living in relief camps or outside the state. There is no robust and practical mechanism available for the fair registration and physical verification of these displaced citizens.
• Non-availability of Statutory Documents: In the circumstances arising after May 2023, the houses of thousands of displaced families were damaged, resulting in the destruction of essential documents such as educational certificates, voter ID cards, and [Aadhaar Redacted]. Presenting documentary evidence in such a situation is extremely difficult for them.
• Traditional Naming Conventions: Tribal communities (especially Kuki-Zo) have oral and flexible naming traditions where names are determined by surnames or the last letters of the parents. Discrepancies in English spelling are technically treated as erroneous by the administrative machinery, increasing their risk of exclusion.
• Lack of Sixth Schedule Protection: The hill areas of Manipur do not enjoy full protection under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution; instead, they fall under Article 371C and relatively weak Autonomous Councils. In the past during crises, village chiefs would certify identities, but in the current legal and administrative environment, this traditional system is not receiving recognition.
• Narrative of Illegal Migration: The majority narratives in the state claim "illegal migrants" while targeting specific communities. This perception can influence the revision process and hinder the creation of an unbiased environment.

Status of Previous Phases

The impact of SIR in previous phases has been devastating:

• In Uttar Pradesh, approximately 2.05 crore names and in West Bengal, approximately 83.86 lakh names of voters were deleted from the electoral roll.
• In Bihar too, millions of people were excluded from the voter list along similar lines, leading it to be labeled as the "largest electoral expulsion campaign of the 21st century."
• Most of the affected people were poor, illiterate, migrant laborers, or belonged to minority communities, who could not get the discrepancies in their documents rectified in time.

Major Challenges in Manipur

• Geographical and Security Barriers: The geographical division of the state into valley and hills poses serious security challenges for both officials and citizens to visit each other's areas for physical verification.

• Crisis of Administrative Neutrality: The local administration and machinery are facing allegations of adopting a partially biased approach, which affects the credibility of the process.
• Slow Pace of Judicial and Remedial Measures: Even long after the crisis, legal and punitive processes not reaching a logical conclusion weakens public trust in the justice system.

Social Status and Statistics of Manipur

• Demographic Composition:

  • Meitei: Approximately 54% of the total population (concentrated primarily in the Imphal Valley).
  • Naga: Approximately 26% of the total population (residing primarily in the northern hill districts).
  • Kuki-Zo: Approximately 15% of the total population (residing primarily in the hill areas).
• Human Loss and Displacement: Due to the conflict, more than 260 citizens have lost their lives so far, and over 60,000 people have been internally displaced.
• Current SIR 2026 Figures (Manipur Draft Roll):
  • Previously, there were a total of 20,93,076 registered voters in Manipur.
  • According to the recently released draft roll, only 19,34,399 voter forms could be digitally processed.
  • Approximately 1.58 lakh voter forms could not be submitted or they were found physically unreachable, making their exclusion from the voter list highly probable.

Other Important Points

• Impact on the 2029 Delimitation: The outcomes of this SIR will directly impact the upcoming delimitation and the 2029 general elections. The deletion of any community's population from the electoral roll can permanently shrink their future political share and representation.

• Lack of Awareness in Political Leadership: Initially, the tribal leadership treated this as a routine administrative process, but currently, looking at its far-reaching legal and citizenship implications, civil society organizations have initiated institutional opposition against it.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions

The revision of electoral rolls and the democratic rights of citizens are governed and protected by the following provisions of the Indian Constitution and statutory laws:

• Constitutional Provisions:
  • Article 324: Under this, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is vested with the complete power of superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
  • Article 325: This provides that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in the electoral roll on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or sex.
  • Article 326 (Adult Suffrage): This grants the right to vote to every adult citizen, which can be legally restricted only on grounds of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, or corrupt or illegal practice.
  • Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): According to various rulings of the Honorable Supreme Court, a valid citizen's right to vote and democratic inclusion are an integral part of their right to a dignified life.
  • Article 371C: This makes special provisions with respect to the State of Manipur, under which there is a provision for a special legislative committee to secure the administration and interests of the hill areas.
• Statutory and Legal Provisions:
  • Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA, 1950):
    • Sections 15 to 20: These define the necessary qualifications (such as being an 'ordinarily resident') for the preparation, revision, and registration of electoral rolls.
    • Section 22: This empowers the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to delete or amend names in the electoral roll, but makes it mandatory to follow due process and provide an 'opportunity of being heard'.
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Under these, a detailed procedure for house-to-house verification (Rule 21A) and the disposal of claims and objections is prescribed, where maintaining transparency is legally required.

Analysis

Although the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an essential constitutional effort to ensure the transparency and purity of the electoral roll, in a complex demographic and internally divided environment like Manipur, maintaining a fine balance between inclusion and social sensitivity during its implementation is highly crucial, so that no valid citizen is deprived of their democratic rights due to technical or displacement-related reasons.

Way Forward

• Development of Alternative Identification Mechanisms: Flexibility should be introduced in the mandatory requirement of legal documents for displaced and affected citizens. Instead, temporary recognition should be granted to certifications provided by traditional village chiefs and credible civil society organizations.

• Special Registration Centers in Relief Camps: Special voter registration camps should be organized for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at their current places of residence (relief camps).
• Linguistic and Cultural Sensitivity: Necessary technical modifications should be made to the software and data entry systems to incorporate local languages and traditional naming conventions so that no one is excluded on the basis of spelling errors.

Conclusion

Making the voter list error-free and transparent is a constitutional obligation of the Election Commission, but this process must not become a tool to deprive any valid citizen of their fundamental democratic and voting rights. In a sensitive border state like Manipur, administrative reforms must be implemented with humanitarian sensitivity, inclusivity, and fairness. If this process is not rectified, it will further intensify political alienation and social discontent instead of democratic consolidation.

India-Australia Strategic Partnership: A New Horizon of Security, Energy and Stability in the Indo-Pacific

Performance Grading Index (PGI)

Context

Recently, the Performance Grading Index report for States/Union Territories (PGI-S) and Districts (PGI-D) for the year 2025-26 has been released by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Union Ministry of Education.

Main News Points

• Vast Educational Structure: According to the report, the Indian education system is one of the largest systems in the world, which includes approximately 24.72 crore students, 1.03 crore teachers, and more than 14.67 lakh schools from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
• PGI-S 2.0 (State/Union Territory Level): This index categorizes states and union territories into different grades or levels based on their performance, so that a balanced and positive evaluation can be ensured by placing multiple states within the same performance band.
• Structural Weightage of PGI-S: Under this, a total weightage of 1000 points has been determined based on 70 indicators, which are divided into 2 categories (Outcome and Governance & Management) and 6 domains.
• Multi-Portal Data Alignment: The data of PGI-S is fully integrated and aligned with UDISE Plus (UDISE+), PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan 2024, PM POSHAN Portal, PRABANDH Portal, and Vidyanjali Portal.
• Expansion of PGI-D (District Level): The Ministry of Education has extended this evaluation system to the district level to focus on the outcome-based measurement of educational policies.
• Structural Weightage of PGI-D: In this district-level framework, a total weightage of 600 points has been fixed under 70 indicators, which is divided into 6 categories and 11 specific domains (such as Digital Learning, School Safety, Attendance Monitoring Systems, etc.).
• In the 10-level grading system of PGI 2025-26, no State/UT achieved the top three grades (71-100%). Chandigarh alone could reach the fourth highest grade 'Uttam-3'.
• The gap between the highest score (Chandigarh) and the lowest score (Meghalaya) has now reduced to 31.4% from 51% in 2017-18, meaning inequality among states is decreasing.
• The scores of Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Odisha, and Uttarakhand have declined compared to 2024-25.

What is the Performance Grading Index (PGI)?

The Performance Grading Index (PGI) is a technical and administrative tool designed for the comprehensive evaluation and improvement of the school education system in India. From an examination perspective, all its important dimensions are as follows:

• Nodal Ministry and Objective:
  • This is a major initiative of the Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSE&L), Union Ministry of Education.
  • Its main objective is to motivate states, union territories, and districts to identify their gaps in the field of school education and to improve through targeted interventions.
• Methodology of Evaluation:
  • PGI uses a 'grading system' instead of the traditional ranking system (such as giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd positions).
  • Benefit: The ranking system leads to unhealthy competition among states, whereas the grading system provides an opportunity for multiple states to fall within the same band (level), which fosters a spirit of collective and constructive improvement among states.
• 6 Major Domains of PGI-S (for States/UTs): This index is based on the following six domains primarily under two categories—Outcome and Governance & Management—with a total weightage of 1000 points:
  1. Learning Outcomes and Quality: Assessment of the actual learning level of students.
  2. Access: The status of enrollment and retention of children in schools.
  3. Infrastructure & Facilities: Physical arrangements like clean drinking water, toilets, and laboratories.
  4. Equity: Equal opportunities for marginalized sections, girls, and children with special needs (divyang).
  5. Governance Processes: Digital administrative system and timely deployment of teachers.
  6. Teacher Education & Training: The quality of professional development and training of teachers.
• 11 Domains of PGI-D (for Districts): To measure the ground realities of districts, PGI-D is classified into 11 domains with 600 points:
  1. Learning Outcomes and Quality
  2. Access Outcomes
  3. Teacher Availability and Professional Development Outcomes
  4. Learning Management
  5. Learning Enrichment Activities
  6. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Student Entitlements
  7. School Safety and Child Protection
  8. Digital Learning
  9. Funds Convergence and Utilisation
  10. Attendance Monitoring Systems
  11. School Leadership Development

Major Sources of Data:

To enhance the reliability of this index, data is drawn completely from objective and digital sources:

• UDISE+: A real-time database related to schools.
• PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan: A nationally standardized assessment of students' learning ability.
• PRABANDH Portal: Tracking of financial and physical progress of the Samagra Shiksha scheme.

Policy Significance:

• This index plays the role of an extremely important tool in monitoring progress toward the goals of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and Sustainable Development Goal-4 (SDG-4: Quality Education).

Conclusion

The Performance Grading Index is an excellent example of data-driven governance, which highlights the deficiencies at different levels of Indian school education. Equitable and quality education can be ensured in the country only through the precise measurement of educational policies at the grassroots level and the constructive use of this index.

Performance Grading Index (PGI)

Context

Recently, the Performance Grading Index report for States/Union Territories (PGI-S) and Districts (PGI-D) for the year 2025-26 has been released by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Union Ministry of Education.

Main News Points

• Vast Educational Structure: According to the report, the Indian education system is one of the largest systems in the world, which includes approximately 24.72 crore students, 1.03 crore teachers, and more than 14.67 lakh schools from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
• PGI-S 2.0 (State/Union Territory Level): This index categorizes states and union territories into different grades or levels based on their performance, so that a balanced and positive evaluation can be ensured by placing multiple states within the same performance band.
• Structural Weightage of PGI-S: Under this, a total weightage of 1000 points has been determined based on 70 indicators, which are divided into 2 categories (Outcome and Governance & Management) and 6 domains.
• Multi-Portal Data Alignment: The data of PGI-S is fully integrated and aligned with UDISE Plus (UDISE+), PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan 2024, PM POSHAN Portal, PRABANDH Portal, and Vidyanjali Portal.
• Expansion of PGI-D (District Level): The Ministry of Education has extended this evaluation system to the district level to focus on the outcome-based measurement of educational policies.
• Structural Weightage of PGI-D: In this district-level framework, a total weightage of 600 points has been fixed under 70 indicators, which is divided into 6 categories and 11 specific domains (such as Digital Learning, School Safety, Attendance Monitoring Systems, etc.).
• In the 10-level grading system of PGI 2025-26, no State/UT achieved the top three grades (71-100%). Chandigarh alone could reach the fourth highest grade 'Uttam-3'.
• The gap between the highest score (Chandigarh) and the lowest score (Meghalaya) has now reduced to 31.4% from 51% in 2017-18, meaning inequality among states is decreasing.
• The scores of Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Odisha, and Uttarakhand have declined compared to 2024-25.

What is the Performance Grading Index (PGI)?

The Performance Grading Index (PGI) is a technical and administrative tool designed for the comprehensive evaluation and improvement of the school education system in India. From an examination perspective, all its important dimensions are as follows:

• Nodal Ministry and Objective:
  • This is a major initiative of the Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSE&L), Union Ministry of Education.
  • Its main objective is to motivate states, union territories, and districts to identify their gaps in the field of school education and to improve through targeted interventions.
• Methodology of Evaluation:
  • PGI uses a 'grading system' instead of the traditional ranking system (such as giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd positions).
  • Benefit: The ranking system leads to unhealthy competition among states, whereas the grading system provides an opportunity for multiple states to fall within the same band (level), which fosters a spirit of collective and constructive improvement among states.
• 6 Major Domains of PGI-S (for States/UTs): This index is based on the following six domains primarily under two categories—Outcome and Governance & Management—with a total weightage of 1000 points:
  1. Learning Outcomes and Quality: Assessment of the actual learning level of students.
  2. Access: The status of enrollment and retention of children in schools.
  3. Infrastructure & Facilities: Physical arrangements like clean drinking water, toilets, and laboratories.
  4. Equity: Equal opportunities for marginalized sections, girls, and children with special needs (divyang).
  5. Governance Processes: Digital administrative system and timely deployment of teachers.
  6. Teacher Education & Training: The quality of professional development and training of teachers.
• 11 Domains of PGI-D (for Districts): To measure the ground realities of districts, PGI-D is classified into 11 domains with 600 points:
  1. Learning Outcomes and Quality
  2. Access Outcomes
  3. Teacher Availability and Professional Development Outcomes
  4. Learning Management
  5. Learning Enrichment Activities
  6. Infrastructure, Facilities, and Student Entitlements
  7. School Safety and Child Protection
  8. Digital Learning
  9. Funds Convergence and Utilisation
  10. Attendance Monitoring Systems
  11. School Leadership Development

Major Sources of Data:

To enhance the reliability of this index, data is drawn completely from objective and digital sources:

• UDISE+: A real-time database related to schools.
• PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan: A nationally standardized assessment of students' learning ability.
• PRABANDH Portal: Tracking of financial and physical progress of the Samagra Shiksha scheme.

Policy Significance:

• This index plays the role of an extremely important tool in monitoring progress toward the goals of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and Sustainable Development Goal-4 (SDG-4: Quality Education).

Conclusion

The Performance Grading Index is an excellent example of data-driven governance, which highlights the deficiencies at different levels of Indian school education. Equitable and quality education can be ensured in the country only through the precise measurement of educational policies at the grassroots level and the constructive use of this index.

National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)

Context

Recently, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by retired officials and conservationists, challenging the legality of the functioning and the administrative neutrality of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and its Standing Committee.

Main News Points

• Petitioners: This petition has been filed by a group of 10 retired forest officials and conservationists, led by retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Prakriti Srivastava. It also includes M.K. Ranjitsinh, the 88-year-old former civil servant widely regarded as the principal drafter of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

• Allegation (Role of a Clearing House): The petition alleges that the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and its Standing Committee have become mere "clearing houses" (clearance-granting institutions) that are routinely diverting protected area lands for roads, mining, industries, and other non-conservation projects without proper review.
• Unprecedented Approval Rate of over 97%: The petitioners claim that the Standing Committee blindly approved more than 97% of the proposals related to the diversion, reduction in area, or de-notification of protected lands between the years 2014 and 2026, often disposing of over 100 proposals in a single day.
• Inactivity of the Main Board: As per rules, the meeting of the full NBWL should be organized annually, but it was convened in the year 2025 for the first time after a long gap of 13 years. Due to this inactivity, the Standing Committee has practically become its primary executive and operational arm.
• Demand for Binding Guidelines: The petitioners have demanded from the court that strict and legally binding guidelines be framed to regulate the decision-making modalities of both bodies.
• Court's Timeline: The Delhi High Court has directed the government to file its official reply in this matter by August 18, and the next hearing of this case has been scheduled for September 18.

What is the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)?

The National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) is an extremely important institution in the Indian administrative and environmental setup. From an examination perspective, all its key dimensions are as follows:

• Establishment and Legal Status:
  • It is a "Statutory Body" constituted under Section 5A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
  • It is the apex body in the country for wildlife conservation and policy-making matters in India.
• Role and Nature of Functioning:
  • Its role is primarily advisory in nature. It advises the Central Government on framing policies and programs for the conservation and development of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and other protected areas.
• Organizational Structure:
  • Chairperson: The Prime Minister of India is its ex-officio Chairperson.
  • Vice-Chairperson: The Union Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change is its Vice-Chairperson.
  • Members: It consists of a total of 47 members, including three Members of Parliament (two from Lok Sabha and one from Rajya Sabha), five Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ten eminent ecologists and conservationists, and top administrative officials from various government departments.
• Standing Committee:
  • Under the Act, the NBWL has the power to constitute a 'Standing Committee' to manage daily and practical functions.
  • This Standing Committee is chaired by the Union Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
  • At the practical level, the scrutiny and decision-making for most approvals related to the diversion of forest land or wildlife areas for various developmental projects are carried out by this committee.
• Powers and Functions:
  • Power to Alter Boundaries: Any change in the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries or de-notifying an area cannot be done without the prior recommendation of the NBWL.
  • Project Clearance: For developmental projects proposed within National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and notified Eco-Sensitive Zones, it is mandatory to obtain the recommendation/approval of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) in accordance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and directions of the Supreme Court, wherever required. Where Eco-Sensitive Zones are not notified, cases are examined in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court.
  • Policy Formulation: Formulating the National Wildlife Action Plan in the country and reviewing it from time to time is its primary responsibility.
  • Impact Assessment Inquiries: The Board, if necessary, can constitute independent expert committees to assess the potential damage caused by any project to wildlife.

Conclusion

Striking a harmony between ecological balance and sustainable development is absolutely essential for any nation. An apex institution like the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) must restore its statutory responsibility and accountability toward environmental protection, ensuring that swift administrative clearances are not granted at the cost of the country's rich biodiversity and the very survival of future generations.