COMPLAINTS of large-scale irregularities have emerged in the electoral roll of the Pilibhit Sadar Assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that names were changed while the EPIC number and serial number were retained. Irregularities involving 13,150 names have come to light in this case. The matter surfaced after the completion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

Similar irregularities were also found in the electoral rolls for the Jhansi and Allahabad divisions in the MLC elections held on October 23. These included bizarre names such as “Ram ne maara Yadav.” The Election Commission has acknowledged the irregularities and ordered an investigation. In view of these cases, a review and thorough investigation of the entire SIR process is necessary. Let us examine the SIR process in Uttar Pradesh and understand what happened.

The Election Commission had claimed that the objective of the SIR in Uttar Pradesh was to make the voter list more accurate, transparent and error-free. However, a large number of names were deleted and added during it. Questions are now being raised about the need to launch another campaign to ensure that eligible voters get their names included.

The Election Commission has announced that in states where the SIR was conducted, a campaign titled “Not a Single Voter Should Be Left Out” will be held in October to have Form 6 filled out. No declaration will be required, which is different from the previous provisions applicable under SIR. The Commission has also stated that a Special Summary Revision campaign will be conducted in 17 states to add the names of eligible voters. Correcting electoral rolls and ensuring that no eligible citizen is deprived of the right to vote are essential; but if the very purpose of the SIR was to make the electoral roll accurate and error-free, why are reports emerging that large numbers of eligible voters have been left out even after its completion?

The question concerns not merely the functioning of the Election Commission but also the voting rights of crores of citizens and the credibility of the electoral process. The Election Commission, under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, is working at the behest of the BJP-RSS and continually changing rules in ways that benefit the BJP.

The SIR process in Uttar Pradesh began on October 27, 2025. It was implemented across all 75 districts, 403 Assembly constituencies and 80 Lok Sabha constituencies in the state. The draft electoral roll was published on January 6, 2026, and claims and objections were accepted until February 6.

Before the SIR began, the electoral roll in Uttar Pradesh contained a total of 15,44,30,092 voters. The Commission then initiated the process of distributing and collecting enumeration forms through door-to-door visits. The electoral machinery claimed that 100 per cent of the enumeration forms had been distributed and collected. The process was so complicated that citizens faced considerable difficulties. In effect, voters were burdened with the task of proving their citizenship. They were asked to match their own names or those of their parents against the 2003 electoral roll.

The number of voters fell to 12,55,56,025 in the draft electoral roll published on January 6. This means that 2,88,74,067 names from the original list were not included in the draft roll. This amounted to approximately 18.70 per cent of the previous electorate.

According to the Election Commission, those excluded from the draft list included 46,23,796 deceased voters (2.99 per cent), 1,29,77,472 people who had permanently moved elsewhere (8.40 per cent), and 79,52,190 voters whom Booth Level Officers (BLOs) could not locate or whose enumeration forms had not been received (5.15 per cent). In addition, 25,47,207 voters (1.65 per cent) were classified as having registrations at more than one location, while 7,73,402 voters (0.50 per cent) were placed in the “other” category.

WHAT DOES THE CLASSIFICATION OF 2.89 CRORE NAMES TELL US?

It is important to understand these aforementioned categories. Removing the name of a deceased person or eliminating duplicate registrations for the same individual is a normal part of rectifying an electoral roll. However, the fact that a voter could not be found by a BLO is not, by itself, conclusive proof that the voter is ineligible. The failure to locate such a large number of voters is itself a significant concern. The Commission has also not provided clear information about the voters placed in the “other” category. Therefore, the question is not merely how many names were deleted, but also how people classified as absent or having moved were verified and how it was ensured that no eligible voter was left off the list.

VERIFICATION AND HEARINGS

After the draft list was published, a process of claims and objections, document verification and hearings was conducted. During this period, approximately 1.04 crore voters were classified as not being mapped to the 2003 baseline electoral roll. Meanwhile, logical discrepancies were identified in the records of approximately 2.22 crore voters. Combining these two categories, approximately 3.26 crore voters were brought within the scope of issuing notices and verifying documents. Logical discrepancies included differences in names, unusual age differences between parents and children, and irregularities in other details. A discrepancy in a record and a voter’s ineligibility are two different things. Therefore, the process of issuing notices, conducting hearings and verifying documents was important. During this process, voters were made to run from pillar to post. Allegations of arbitrary conduct by the BJP government’s machinery also emerged. Cases were reported in which BJP leaders pressured BLOs and BLOs acted high-handedly in minority neighbourhoods.

It was important to know how many voters in these cases submitted the required documents, how many cases were disposed of, and how many names were ordered to be deleted because the necessary documents had not been produced. However, the Commission neither took political parties into confidence nor provided clear information in its press release of April 10, which announced the final SIR figures. This created further questions and doubts about the process.

MORE NAMES DELETED AT THE FINAL STAGE

According to the figures published with the final electoral roll on April 10, 2026, the total number of voters increased from 12,55,56,025 in the draft list to 13,39,84,792. Thus, the number of voters increased by 84,28,767 compared with the draft list published on January 6. The Commission did not provide political parties with any authorised information, nor did its press release clarify how many of these 84 lakh voters were first-time voters and how many were among the 2.89 crore people whose names had been excluded from the original list and were subsequently reinstated. The Election Commission should publish a consolidated statement that explains the reasons and outcomes of every major change in the electoral roll.

ISSUE OF FORMS 6 AND 7

The CPI(M), alongside other opposition parties, has opposed the inclusion of any declaration in Form 6 from the very beginning. Only Parliament can make changes to the form. Following public pressure and public denial of approval by the Supreme Court, the Commission had to withdraw the declaration and stated that Form 6 would be accepted under the previous rules. At a meeting with the Election Commission, the party clearly raised the issue that if Form 6 is meant for new voters, why is the Commission asking excluded voters to fill it out, and why is it treating them as new voters? Controversy over Form 7 has also continued in the state. Questions have been raised about 85,854 forms. The Commission has defended itself by stating that everything was done according to the rules and that names were deleted after hearings. The concern arises from allegations that, during the SIR, the BJP had attempted to misuse Form 7 in an organised manner. The vigilance of the INDIA bloc parties prevented the BJP from succeeding in this in Uttar Pradesh.

SUPPLEMENTARY ELECTORAL ROLLS: QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY

Earlier, electoral rolls were updated once a year. However, during Gyanesh Kumar’s tenure, this changed, and a rule was introduced to add the names of new voters every quarter of a year. As a result, questions have also been raised about the supplementary electoral rolls published in July and September following the final SIR list. Political parties were not adequately informed about the changes made in these lists.

Periodic updates to electoral rolls are not unusual. Adding the names of eligible new voters, deleting names because of deaths, and making authorised changes to addresses or other details are part of the electoral system. However, if this process continues throughout the year, political parties may find it difficult to monitor the rolls continuously while attending to their other essential responsibilities, and the possibility of irregularities may increase.

When large-scale changes are being made to electoral rolls, transparency becomes even more important. Political parties and citizens should have the opportunity to verify, through records made available under the applicable rules, whether the changes were made on valid grounds. If large numbers of names were added or deleted in the July and September supplementary lists, the Commission should publish complete details: how many names were added, how many were deleted, and how many were modified. It should also clarify whether the prescribed procedures for issuing supplementary lists and informing political parties about them were followed.

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER GYANESH KUMAR MUST ANSWER

Crores of names were excluded from the electoral roll in Uttar Pradesh during the SIR. Despite a large number of names being added to the final list, questions remain about eligible voters being left out. In these circumstances, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission must provide a complete account of the entire process.

The questions are straightforward: Why were eligible voters’ names left out? Were voters whose names were deleted given an adequate opportunity to present their case? Of the 84.28 lakh names added to the final list, how many were reinstated names of existing voters, and how many were new registrations? Why are complete details of changes made in supplementary electoral rolls not being made public? What concrete measures have been taken to prevent eligible voters’ names from being deleted in the future? What steps have been taken to address duplicate entries, incorrect records and complaints of tampering involving thousands of names in electoral rolls? And why was the entire country made to stand in line during the SIR?

ELECTORAL ROLL ACCURACY MUST GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS

Cleaning up electoral rolls is an essential requirement of a democratic system. Therefore, the effort to make the electoral roll error-free must go hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that no eligible voter is excluded. Restoring the credibility of the Election Commission is also essential.

In view of the large-scale changes made during the SIR in Uttar Pradesh, complaints must be addressed so that transparency is maintained in the electoral roll revision process. The Commission must ensure that no eligible citizen is deprived of the right to vote in the name of cleaning up the electoral roll, that the impartiality of the process is clearly evident, and that all actions are carried out in accordance with the law. (END)