Region 
 

Patna

Vanishing Voter

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, begun in Bihar and extended nationwide, has flagged over 130 million voter entries —roughly 14% of the electorate

By Atif Shamim Syed | November 2026

An electoral roll is the dullest document in a democracy—until your name disappears from it. Then it becomes something else: a question about citizenship, political belonging, and the ability to exercise a basic democratic right.

That is why India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has become far more than an administrative exercise. What began in Bihar in June 2025 as an attempt to clean up voter lists has since expanded across much of the country and produced a political and institutional controversy that shows little sign of fading. The Election Commission says it is identifying dead, duplicate, permanently shifted, and otherwise untraceable voters. Its critics argue that the process risks excluding genuine voters on a scale that demands much greater scrutiny.

Both propositions can be true at the same time.

Revising an electoral roll is not wrong. Voters die, change addresses, and sometimes remain registered long after they can no longer be traced. A serious election authority should remove such entries. The real question is what happens to the legitimate voter who gets caught in the same net.

According to figures released by the Election Commission this month, 13.39 crore electors have been placed in the categories of absent, shifted, dead or duplicate during the nationwide SIR exercise. The Commission says this does not mean that 13.39 crore legitimate voters have been permanently disenfranchised. Its classification covers 95.4 crore electors reviewed during the exercise and includes 6.30 crore people classified as permanently shifted, 3.01 crore as absent or untraceable, 2.80 crore as deceased and 1.02 crore as duplicates.

But distinction does matter. Calling all 13.39 crore cases “deleted voters” suggests that the state has permanently deprived 13.39 crore people of their vote. The official data does not establish that.

The Election Commission itself has now ordered a special drive in 20 states and Union Territories where the SIR has been completed to enroll voters who were “left out” of the rolls. That decision is significant. It acknowledges that, whatever the original reason for exclusion, some people still need a practical route back onto the electoral register.

The controversy becomes clearer when viewed through individual cases.

The Indian Express recently reported the case of 72-year-old Samsul Alam and his daughter, Sabia Khatun, in Bolpur. Both had previously been voters, but their names were removed during the SIR process. The family produced educational certificates and other documents, and the matter eventually reached a tribunal. The report said the family had not received notice of the deletion, and the Calcutta High Court later ordered reconsideration of Alam’s case.

The point is not that one case proves a nationwide pattern. It does not.

The point is that a supposedly technical exercise can have a very human consequence. For an elderly voter, being required to reconstruct a documentary trail stretching back decades is not a minor administrative inconvenience.

Other cases reported in newspapers illustrate similar problems. These are reported individual cases, not independently established evidence of a nationwide campaign to disenfranchise voters. That distinction is important.

But individual cases still matter because they expose what national statistics can obscure: the burden created when the electoral system places the responsibility for resolving a data problem on the voter.

The documentation issue has been one of the most contentious aspects of the exercise. In Bihar, the Supreme Court eventually directed the Election Commission to accept the Aadhaar card as an identity document for the SIR process, while making clear that Aadhaar alone does not establish citizenship.


The Court’s broader judgment on Bihar is equally important. It recognized the Election Commission’s authority to undertake an intensive revision of electoral rolls, subject to legal and procedural safeguards. The judgment therefore strengthened the Commission’s legal authority to conduct the exercise. It did not mean that every individual exclusion was beyond challenge.

That distinction has become particularly relevant in West Bengal.

In September, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court that 38.20 lakh appeals had been filed against deletion and inclusion decisions in the state, but only about 1.02 lakh had been disposed of at that stage.

The existence of an appeals mechanism matters, but its ability to dispose of appeals matters just as much. An appeal that takes months to resolve may offer little comfort to a voter approaching an election. And a process that requires elderly people, migrants or economically vulnerable citizens to navigate tribunals, paperwork and deadlines inevitably raises a question about who is carrying the real burden of proof.

The allegations concerning minorities add another layer.

Opposition parties and civil-society groups have raised concerns about the possible disproportionate effect of SIR on Muslim voters and other vulnerable communities. The Election Commission and government have rejected allegations of partisan discrimination. Such concerns should be investigated rather than dismissed, but they should not be converted into an established finding that the SIR was designed to disenfranchise Muslims. The available evidence does not justify such a categorical conclusion.

The same caution should apply to claims that the exercise has already altered electoral outcomes.

It may eventually be possible to demonstrate an electoral effect in particular constituencies. But turnout, candidate choice, party organization, campaigning, and countless other factors shape national election results. The mere existence of large-scale revisions does not prove that the revisions determined an election.

The more immediate issue is simpler: Can a legitimate voter who has been wrongly excluded get back onto the roll in time to vote?

India needs accurate electoral rolls. There is nothing democratic about retaining the names of people who have died, permanently moved away, or been registered more than once. An electoral roll full of errors can itself undermine an election.

But accuracy has two sides. The state must be able to remove an ineligible name. It must also recognize when it has made a mistake.

For an election official, an old address may be a data discrepancy, but for an elderly voter, it may be the address where he or she lived for most of his or her life. For a migrant worker, an absent name in an old electoral roll may reflect years of moving in search of work rather than an attempt to evade registration. For a poor family without orderly records, a spelling variation in an old database can become a bureaucratic obstacle.

If the state has kept a person on its electoral roll for years, there is a reasonable democratic expectation that it should also make the process of challenging that person’s eligibility transparent, accessible, and proportionate.

The danger is not simply that an individual name may disappear. It is that citizens begin to believe that remaining on the electoral roll is conditional on their ability to satisfy an increasingly complicated administrative process. That is a dangerous shift in the relationship between citizen and state.

The Election Commission has long been one of India’s most respected constitutional institutions. That reputation has value. It is also a great responsibility.

Read More