Context

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) has historically strengthened Indian democracy by expanding universal adult franchise.
• Since the first general election of 1951–52, it has worked to ensure electoral participation irrespective of literacy, income, gender or social background.
• However, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has raised concerns about mass deletions, procedural irregularities and the exclusion of eligible voters.

The Scale of Voter Deletions

• Approximately 13.37 crore names were deleted at the draft stage across 30 States and Union Territories during three phases of the SIR.
• Deletion rates increased from 8.3% in Bihar to 12.9% in Phase 2 and 17% in Phase 3. Delhi recorded 32.8%, while Telangana recorded 21.7%.
• In Delhi, the draft roll contained 97.54 lakh electors, barely exceeding the 94.95 lakh people who voted in the 2025 Assembly election.
• In 24 constituencies, the draft roll contained fewer electors than the number who had voted previously.

Flaws by Design

• Reversal of the Enumeration Process
  • The ECI’s 2023 Manual on Electoral Rolls prescribes household enumeration and gives evidentiary value to existing electoral entries when eligibility is questioned.
  • The SIR, however, shifts the burden onto voters to establish their eligibility through old records or documents.
  • People who could not be contacted, complete forms or produce required information risked deletion, even if they had voted previously.
  • This approach undermines presumption of eligibility and places excessive responsibility on citizens.
• Difficulties in Restoring Deleted Voters
  • Deleted voters must often apply through Form 6, normally intended for new electors.
  • This creates unnecessary barriers and prevents clear differentiation between new enrolments and restored voters.
  • A simple, accessible correction mechanism is essential to protect legitimate electoral participation.
• Arbitrary Logical Discrepancies
  • Software comparisons with decades-old records flagged spelling variations, family relationships and age differences.
  • In West Bengal, 60 lakh names were flagged, and judicial officers removed 27 lakh.
  • Appellate tribunals restored 93% of the cases they decided, indicating significant scope for errors.
  • By early September, only 1.22 lakh of more than 38 lakh appeals had been decided.
  • Automated scrutiny must not replace individual verification, notice and fair hearings.
• Excessive Centralisation
  • The increasing use of ERONet, the central electoral database, has raised concerns about transparency.
  • State officials reportedly cannot always view centrally made changes. Clear responsibility, traceable records and effective oversight by statutory Electoral Registration Officers are essential.

Unequal Impact Across Social Groups

• In Bihar, more women than men were deleted, particularly those aged 18–29 and classified as permanently shifted.
• The gender ratio fell from 907 in the 2024 Lok Sabha rolls to 892 after revision.
• In West Bengal, the SABAR Institute estimated that Muslims constituted 65% of those deleted after adjudication for logical discrepancies, despite representing around 27% of the State’s population.
• These disparities warrant independent investigation. Electoral fairness requires protection against disproportionate exclusion, particularly among women, migrants, minorities and young voters.

A Deferential Court

• The Supreme Court upheld the SIR on May 27, after Phase 2 had ended and Phase 3 had been notified.
• Critics question whether the judgment adequately examined the statutory basis and consequences of the exercise.
• They argue that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, permits special revision for a constituency or part of one, while the Court allowed a State-wide exercise.
• The judgment has also been criticised for insufficiently considering less harmful alternatives and the precedent in Lal Babu Hussein (1995), which emphasised procedural safeguards against wrongful deletion.
• Judicial oversight must balance electoral independence with constitutional protection of voting rights. 

Dissent Within the Election Commission

• Reports indicate that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026.
• One concerned changes to Form 6 requiring applicants to establish links to previous SIR rolls without corresponding rule amendments.
• Such decisions demand legal clarity, transparent deliberation and institutional accountability.
• Internal objections should trigger meaningful review rather than superficial administrative changes.

The Way Forward

• The Supreme Court should reconsider significant legal concerns and examine an independent audit of finalised rolls.
• Door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers should be strengthened, with election officials bearing primary responsibility for identifying eligible voters.
• Deleted electors must receive notice, clear reasons and accessible appeals.
• The ECI should publish transparent data on deletions, additions, restorations and appeals, including disaggregated information on gender, age and migration.
• Centralised databases must remain auditable, while urgent safeguards should prevent eligible citizens from losing their voting rights during election periods.

Conclusion

• The SIR exposes a fundamental tension between electoral accuracy and democratic inclusion. Removing ineligible entries is legitimate, but doing so must not exclude genuine voters through arbitrary procedures or excessive documentation requirements.
• The ECI’s credibility depends on transparent administration, judicial scrutiny and effective remedies.
• An electoral revision succeeds only when it removes ineligible entries without disenfranchising eligible citizens.