Context: The Election Commission of India (ECI) undertook SIR to revise electoral rolls, identify ineligible entries and improve voter-list accuracy. The exercise has triggered debate over alleged mass disenfranchisement, procedural shortcomings and the ECI’s impartiality.
- Central argument: The article argues that claims of mass voter exclusion must be assessed against the number of people who would ordinarily be expected to register, rather than by comparing electoral rolls directly with the entire adult population.
Dispute Over the Scale of Voter Exclusion
- Claims of mass deletions: Opposition leaders and commentators cited figures ranging from over 10 crore to 13 crore voters, with some projections suggesting around 14 crore across India. The article argues that these figures risk confusing names flagged for possible exclusion or the gap between adult population and registered voters with actual disenfranchisement.
- Nine-state comparison: The article examines Bihar and eight other large states in the second phase of SIR, together accounting for roughly three-fifths of India's adults. Their projected adult population was 59.9 crore, compared with 52.8 crore names on the final electoral rolls—a gap of 7.1 crore (about 12%).
- Why the adult-population gap can mislead: Electoral registration is not universal. The article cites examples of eligible adults missing from electoral lists in Canada, Britain and the United States to illustrate that the difference between adult population and registered electors does not, by itself, establish disenfranchisement.
Estimating the Expected Electoral Roll
- Unregistered young adults: ECI data cited in the article indicate that four in ten young adults in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were not registered in 2024. Across the nine states, approximately 5.2 crore people aged 18–29 (8.7% of adults) were estimated to be unregistered.
- Other unregistered adults: The author adds another 1.5% of adults for older people who had never registered or had moved without re-registering. Together, these groups account for an estimated 6.1 crore adults who would ordinarily not appear on electoral rolls.
- Expected versus actual roll: After adjusting for expected non-registration, the author estimates an expected roll of 53.8 crore, against the final roll of 52.8 crore. The resulting shortfall is approximately 1 crore, rather than 7.1 crore.
- Interpretation: The author argues that the adjusted estimate is a better measure of potential wrongful exclusion, while acknowledging that even one crore eligible voters wrongly removed would represent a serious democratic concern.
State-Level Variations
- West Bengal: The author estimates an expected roll of 7.4 crore against a final roll of 6.8 crore, leaving a shortfall of around 60 lakh. The article highlights concerns over delayed appeals: of 34 lakh people who appealed, fewer than 0.05% reportedly had their cases heard before election day; subsequent tribunal findings reportedly indicated that 90% of appellants had been valid voters.
- Bihar: The final roll contained 7.4 crore voters, compared with an estimated expected roll of 6.8 crore. The author suggests that migration may help explain the state's registration patterns, as many people work elsewhere but remain registered in their home constituencies.
- Regional differences: The author cautions against applying national averages to individual states, as youth registration rates and migration patterns vary significantly across states.
Why the Pre-SIR Electoral Rolls Also Matter
- Duplicate and obsolete entries: The nine states had 58.6 crore names on their pre-SIR rolls, compared with the estimated clean-roll figure of 53.8 crore. The author attributes the nearly five-crore difference to deceased voters, people who had moved away and duplicate entries.
- Incomplete registration alongside bloated rolls: The article argues that electoral rolls can simultaneously contain ineligible entries and omit eligible voters. It cites the exclusion of an estimated 5.2 crore unregistered young adults to illustrate this problem.
- Assessment of deletions: The author notes that Jean Drèze subsequently acknowledged that old electoral rolls may have excluded a significant share of adults while conceding that the majority of SIR deletions were legitimate.
Concerns Regarding the SIR Process
- Administrative shortcomings: The author maintains that the exercise was conducted hastily, often shortly before state elections, with excessive paperwork burdens on poor and migrant voters.
- Discrepancy notices: Notices over minor inconsistencies, including misspelt names, reportedly created difficulties for voters. The article also alleges that verification procedures disproportionately affected Muslims in Murshidabad and Malda and Matua communities.
- Delayed appeals: The reported failure to resolve appeals before election day raises concerns about whether affected voters had an effective opportunity to challenge their exclusion.
- Transparency deficit: The ECI has been criticised for not publishing a comprehensive national post-SIR roll and a detailed breakdown of deletions by reason, state and polling booth.
- Institutional independence: The author questions the ECI's perceived impartiality following the 2023 change in the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, as well as political rhetoric about alleged infiltrators without supporting numerical evidence.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
- Article 326 — Universal adult suffrage: Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are based on adult suffrage. Citizens aged 18 years or above are eligible for registration, subject to the Constitution's permitted disqualifications relating to non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt/illegal practices.
- Principle of electoral inclusion: The article argues that the state should establish valid grounds for excluding a person who claims eligibility, rather than routinely requiring citizens to prove their citizenship or identity again.
- Passport and citizenship: The article discusses confusion over whether an Indian passport constitutes proof of citizenship. Although a passport is issued to Indian citizens following verification, its evidentiary role in electoral registration must be distinguished from the question of whether it is conclusive proof in every legal proceeding. The author argues that challenges to a passport holder's citizenship should be resolved through a fair legal process rather than an arbitrary demand for fresh proof.
Way Forward
- Evidence-based assessment: The ECI should distinguish between names flagged for verification, legitimate deletions, erroneous deletions and eligible citizens who were never registered.
- Transparent disclosure: Publish state-wise and polling-booth-wise deletion figures, reasons for removal, appeal outcomes and consolidated post-SIR electoral rolls.
- Accessible registration: Simplify documentation requirements and verification procedures, particularly for poor, migrant and marginalised voters.
- Effective grievance redressal: Ensure appeals and tribunal proceedings are completed sufficiently before elections so that eligible voters are not denied the opportunity to vote.
- Strengthen institutional credibility: Protect the perceived independence of the ECI through transparent procedures, consistent standards and accountable decision-making.
