- Op-Ed
- The Ballot Before the Booth
The Ballot Before the Booth
Why India’s SIR crisis has moved from courtrooms to the streets
From Bihar’s deletions and Bengal’s stalled appeals to Maharashtra’s disputed additions, India’s electoral-roll crisis has crossed into the streets. A reported 13.4 crore draft-roll shock, contested forms and allegations of police abuse pose a common test: can verification protect every eligible citizen’s place in democracy?
Support Independent Media
By Prof Ujjwal K. Chowdhury
The vote can vanish before polling day
An election begins before ink touches a finger. It begins with a name on a list. A citizen may possess a voter card and have voted for decades, yet discover that the register no longer recognises them. The distance between citizenship and participation can become a missed notice, an inaccessible hearing—or a software screen that refuses to proceed.
India’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has escaped its administrative vocabulary. By October 6, opposition MPs were marching towards the Election Commission; Reuters reported Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi’s detention. The dispute now encompasses the credibility of the electoral referee and the freedom to question it.19,20
Removing dead, duplicate and ineligible entries is necessary. But a deletion system without an effective restoration system can produce a clean-looking database and an injured democracy.
13.4 crore: what the headline counts
The reported 13.4 crore—134 million—concerns draft-roll omissions across 30 states and Union Territories. Deaths, duplicates and genuine relocation explain some removals; wrongful exclusions must be identified separately.4
The Indian Express reported Delhi’s draft electorate falling from about 1.45 crore to 97.53 lakh, or 32.8 per cent, and Maharashtra’s from 9.78 crore to 7.71 crore, or 21.1 per cent. These contractions demand constituency-level explanations.5 Neither an alarming national total nor reassuring final totals disclose who lost an eligible vote.
The Commission owes citizens a reconciliation: previous registrations, reason-coded omissions, restorations, new entrants, final exclusions and pending appeals. Administrative accuracy needs a visible audit trail.
When verification becomes an obstacle course
SIR shifts the burden onto existing electors, who may have to reconstruct historical records and family links. Marriage-related name changes, inconsistent ages and transliteration errors can become eligibility obstacles. An algorithmic mismatch justifies inquiry; it cannot establish ineligibility by itself.10
For migrant workers, a locked door is particularly dangerous. Section 20(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 protects ordinary residence despite temporary absence. Section 22 requires verification and a reasonable hearing opportunity for specified adverse changes; Section 24 provides appeals. These protections must work without repeated travel, lost wages or a smartphone.6
Article 325 prohibits exclusion on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex; Article 326 anchors elections in adult suffrage, subject to lawful disqualifications.36 Neutral paperwork can impose unequal burdens. The democratic objection is that citizens with the weakest documentary resources may bear the greatest risk of exclusion.
The sequencing matters. First remove a name, then ask its holder to reclaim it, and the consequences of administrative failure fall on the voter. A fair process should disclose the evidence, deliver an intelligible notice and provide assistance before an adverse decision takes effect.
Forms 6 and 7: two doors, unequal power
Form 6 seeks enrolment; Form 7 permits objections to inclusion or requests for deletion. A Form 7 application is not a deletion order: authorities must verify it. Not every SIR omission originates in Form 7. Knowingly false declarations can attract legal consequences.3,6
Two Form 6 problems overlap. The newer online historical-roll declaration raises whether an additional mandatory condition can be imposed without amending the rules. Commissioners objected; the ECI says the prescribed form remained unchanged, with an SIR declaration attached.10,11 Separately, previously registered Maharashtra voters asked to reapply confront the existing first-time-enrolment declaration. Activist Ulka Mahajan questions how they can truthfully make it. Officials prescribe Form 6, but reported suggestions to strike out the clause lack formal instructions.37
Syed Ali Mujtaba’s supplied Counterview article links registration barriers to alleged bulk Form 7 targeting, especially fears among Muslims.1 Karnataka FIRs provide specific allegations: false claims, forgery or pressure in Mysuru, Bidar and Belagavi, including an alleged attempt to remove 198 voters. Complaints are not convictions or proof that deletion succeeded.28
The BJP sought review, arguing multiple lawful objections are not inherently criminal. Karnataka’s CEO promised inquiry; accused BJP leader Ravi Patil received anticipatory bail. The test is evidence of falsification, applied across parties.29,30
Bihar: the template, the deletions, the first mobilisation
Bihar’s June 24, 2025 exercise tested eligibility against an old roll and a demanding documentary framework, months before Assembly polling. The official ledger starts with 7.89 crore electors: 65 lakh omitted from the August draft, another 3.66 lakh removed during claims, and 21.53 lakh added through Form 6. The September 30 final roll contained about 7.42 crore—a net reduction near 47 lakh, alongside gross removals around 68.66 lakh. Additions should not all be described as restorations.38
The original scheme helps explain the fear. Those linked to the 2003 roll could avoid fresh eligibility documents; others faced an indicative eleven-document list. Birth cohorts determined whether papers for the elector alone, one parent or both parents were required. Missing the enumeration deadline meant absence from the draft, followed by a Form 6 claim. The Commission promised volunteers, inquiry and hearings.48 Initially excluded Aadhaar, ration cards and EPIC made the burden controversial; field feedback later encouraged officials to use family links and government registers to support inclusion.49
The Indian Express reported that nearly 99 per cent of deletions concerned death, migration or duplication, citing Bihar sources. That challenged the emphasis on citizenship checks. Its reporting also found women’s share declining from 47.75 to 47.15 per cent. These patterns warrant investigation, not an automatic conclusion of deliberate targeting.39
The dispute also built INDIA’s street campaign. Rahul Gandhi launched the 16-day, 1,300-km Voter Adhikar Yatra from Sasaram on August 17, with Tejashwi Yadav, Lalu Prasad and Mallikarjun Kharge at the launch. Electoral paperwork became a mass political issue before spreading nationally.40
The Supreme Court: permission, safeguards, then validation
On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court let Bihar’s exercise continue while questioning authority, procedure and timing, and suggesting consideration of Aadhaar, voter cards and ration cards.7 On August 14 it required searchable disclosure of omitted names and reasons. September 8 brought Aadhaar’s acceptance as a twelfth identity document, without treating it as proof of citizenship.8,9
On May 27, 2026, Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India upheld Bihar SIR’s authority under Section 21(3), read with Article 324. The official summary recognises limited electoral scrutiny of citizenship while reserving formal citizenship determination to competent authorities. Its reasoning relied on safeguards and judicial corrections.2
There is therefore a substantial legal obstacle to declaring intensive revision inherently impermissible. The stronger continuing challenge concerns particular requirements, software restrictions and exclusions. The Court’s validation of Bihar did not approve every later form or confer immunity on implementation.
Bengal: a remedy that arrived too slowly
Bengal demonstrates the difference between having an appeal and recovering a vote. About 90.8 lakh pre-SIR names were removed by April: roughly 63 lakh in the earlier scrutiny and another 27 lakh after adjudication. These are recorded removals, not proof that every removed elector was eligible.41
Facing a trust deficit between the then-TMC government and ECI, the Court brought in judicial officers on February 20. Around 700 officers scrutinised 60.06 lakh cases flagged by the Commission’s logical-discrepancy algorithm; 27.16 lakh names were excluded. Nineteen appellate tribunals followed.42 The April order permitted supplementary rolls for appeals allowed by April 21 or 27, before the two polling phases. Pending appeals alone conferred no vote.43
The ECI’s September court reply recorded 22.21 lakh appeals against exclusion and 16.10 lakh against inclusion, seeking further deletions. Only 1,607 electors had been restored in time for polling, The Indian Express reported.42 That is the sharpest criticism of the remedial timetable: legal relief can exist while the election opportunity expires.
Its October 6 investigation disclosed August 11 tribunal minutes: judges complained of missing portal facilities for notices, additional documents, virtual hearings, order copies and restoration after disposal.44 Goa’s 97 electors, found eligible locally but not restored before the final roll because software lacked reversal, expose a related failure.15 A statutory decision must translate into an executable correction.
Ground anger also became coercive. After judicial officers were surrounded in Malda on April 1, the Court rebuked the state administration and transferred the investigation to the NIA.45 Protecting peaceful protest does not excuse intimidating adjudicators; protecting officers does not resolve wrongful exclusions.
The electoral consequences require care. Deletions exceeding a victory margin do not establish how excluded people would have voted, or automatically invalidate a result. The immediate issue is each person’s eligibility and access to relief. Systemic exclusion needs investigation even where its partisan effect cannot be proved.
Maharashtra: the additions mystery needs a ledger
Maharashtra’s disputed additions predate SIR. In February 2025 Rahul Gandhi alleged over 39 lakh names appeared between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, exceeding additions over the preceding five years. Reuters could not independently verify his figure. The suspicion persists, but it is an allegation requiring entry-level testing.46
The ECI’s December 24, 2024 response supplies different arithmetic: 48,81,620 gross additions minus 8,00,391 deletions produced a net increase of 40,81,229. It cited July and October qualifying dates and 26,46,608 additions aged 18–29. It also disputed the claim that 50 constituencies had additions above 50,000, saying only six did. Those are the Commission’s explanations, not an independent audit.47
More registrations can enfranchise overlooked adults; population estimates cannot alone establish bogus voters. Equally, aggregate growth cannot validate every entry. The unresolved test is whether applications, residence checks and decisions support disputed additions. The 2024 increase and 2026 draft contraction concern different periods and must be reconciled separately. Their combination explains distrust without proving a coordinated manipulation.
The dispute also reaches households. TOI described a 58-year-old Kothrud employee and his wife, previously registered, who were away during enumeration and faced reapplication.37 Their problem illustrates why restoring an established elector needs a clear procedure: absence during a visit is not first-time entry into political life.
October 5: show the records, explain the form
The immediate rupture followed The Indian Express’s September 23 investigation: at least 14 written objections over ten months by Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning registration, deletions, restoration, appeals and database control.10 The issue is whether disputed decisions received lawful collective authorisation.
On October 5, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated: ‘Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us.’ The Court distinguished its May judgment from approval for the later declaration. That was a consequential clarification, not a final ruling invalidating the change.12
It issued notices in petitions by Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeking responses from the Union, ECI, CEC, other Commissioners and relevant officials. It declined immediate ex parte suspension of Gyanesh Kumar. Independent investigation, forensic audit and prosecution were requested remedies, not orders already granted.13
The bench sought records of challenged decisions, including Form 6 material.14 This should not be enlarged into an order publishing every Commission file. Section 18 of the 2023 Commissioners Act provides consensus where possible and majority decision where opinions differ. Approvals, minutes, objections and instructions must establish which route was followed.32
Delhi: barricades around a democratic demand
Delhi’s mobilisation includes Congress and AAP workers, AISA, NSUI, Left supporters, lawyers and civil-society campaigners. AISA’s Neha Bora, Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan were among weekend detainees. Demands linked voting rights, the CEC’s resignation and police accountability.24
Police invoked Section 163 of the BNSS, denied permission, fortified Jantar Mantar and deployed paramilitary personnel. By October 6, The Indian Express reported more than nine FIRs as groups tried to reach restricted areas. Police described difficulties managing dispersed crowds. Public order is a legitimate concern; restrictions and force still require necessity and proportionality.23
Delhi Police is administered through the Union Home Ministry; Maharashtra and UP police answer through their state structures. Electoral personnel operate under ECI control during electoral work.6,31 The state’s dual responsibility is to facilitate accurate registration and peaceful scrutiny of how it is done.
Mumbai, Lucknow and the wider map
The youth-led Cockroach Janta Party protested in Mumbai on October 2 and announced actions in Goa, Kolkata and Bengaluru. These were plans, not verified crowds in every city. Its appeal joins voting rights to generational frustration with institutions.17
On October 4, Uddhav and Raj Thackeray led the Virat Garjana Morcha from Metro Cinema towards BMC headquarters, joined by Congress and NCP (SP) leaders. Participants were urged to carry the tricolour. Demands included scrapping Maharashtra SIR and the CEC’s resignation; Raj advocated ballot papers. His claim that nationwide SIR lacks authority faces the May judgment. ECI stressed missing enumeration forms were not final deletions.21,2
Mumbai Police filed an FIR alleging absence of clearance and breach of prohibitory orders.22 In Lucknow on October 2, SP workers carried a symbolic asthikalash for the Commission’s neutrality. Police stopped the Assembly-bound procession near Hazratganj and moved detainees to Eco Garden.27
UP’s April final roll contained about 13.39 crore voters against 15.44 crore before SIR: roughly 2.05 crore fewer. Its increase of 84.29 lakh from the draft included new voters and cannot all count as restoration. The CEO maintained due process was followed.35 The individual test remains whether eligible people could obtain correction in time.
Why journalists are angry
The supplied Counterview press report records condemnation by DUJ, KUWJ’s Delhi unit and the Indian Women’s Press Corps. The signed DUJ–KUWJ statement alleges sexual harassment, threats and reporting obstruction, seeking a judicial inquiry. It challenges demands for PIB accreditation: freelancers and city reporters also have a right to report.25,26
Three women journalists complained about alleged harassment during October 3 protests. Police announced a Crime Branch inquiry, medical examinations and scrutiny of footage.24 The union statement dates one incident October 2; those accounts should not be silently merged.25 On October 6, ACP Vivek Bhagat’s proposed additional duty charge was withheld pending investigation, not a finding of guilt.33
The subsequent advisory accepted organisation-issued identification or PIB/DIP accreditation. Complaints about missing police name badges nevertheless sharpen accountability: officials demanding identification should remain identifiable.23,25 Preserve evidence, protect complainants and establish responsibility. Police conduct cannot become harder to report precisely when public scrutiny matters most.
INDIA’s campaign must reach the missing voter
At the September 30 meeting of 19 opposition parties, Congress, TMC, RJD, NCP (SP), National Conference and Left leaders planned district actions during October 2–8, the October 6 MPs’ march and a November 1 Delhi rally.18 BJD representatives also joined the Delhi protest; that does not establish alliance membership.34
The coalition can turn mobilisation into verifiable cases: whose name disappeared, what notice arrived, what evidence was submitted and what happened on appeal. Booth agents, community organisers and lawyers can connect courtroom challenges to registration assistance.
No audited national turnout establishes uniform mobilisation. Party campaigns, independent youth groups and journalists also have distinct demands. They converge because exclusion fears now meet institutional dissent and restrictions on protest. The movement’s strongest case rests on documented failures, rather than treating every omission as a proven stolen vote.
That requires patient work alongside rallies: checking draft lists, recording acknowledgement numbers, accompanying vulnerable electors to hearings and tracking whether favourable orders reached the database. Such assistance also tests party claims. Mobilisation earns credibility when it helps an identifiable citizen regain an identifiable right.
The next test is restoration before polling
Disclosure and timely repair could reduce distrust; superficial changes could leave exclusions unresolved; delayed relief and harsh policing could deepen confrontation. Maharashtra’s claims deadline was extended to October 12, with disposal by November 10; Delhi’s to October 30 and November 30. ECI announced an ECINet review involving an independent IIT/IIIT expert.16
Its September 29 direction for a drive in 20 completed-SIR states/UTs uses ordinary Form 6 to enrol eligible people left out.15 Success means names restored, not merely forms collected. Independent audits should trace applications, authorisations, notices, software changes and appeals, publishing reason-coded reconciliation without exposing personal data.
A review will command confidence only if its remit, access to records and findings are public. Software experts can identify failures; legal accountability must establish who authorised the rules and whether officers could exercise statutory powers. A technical repair and a lawful decision are both necessary.
Courts can enforce targeted remedies; governments must protect peaceful assembly and investigate press complaints; parties must help citizens recover registration. An appeal decided after polling cannot return the missed vote. A credible electoral register must be accurate, explainable and correctable while participation is still possible.
How the crisis unfolded
Chronology | November 2024 to 6 October 2026
| DATE | EVENT / SIGNIFICANCE |
| November–24 December 2024 | Maharashtra additions disputed after Assembly polls; ECI reports 40.81 lakh net growth.47 |
| 24 June–10 July 2025 | Bihar SIR ordered; Supreme Court permits continuation while questioning procedure and timing.2,7 |
| 1–17 August 2025 | 65 lakh Bihar draft omissions; Court requires disclosure; Rahul–Tejashwi mobilisation begins.8,40 |
| 8–30 September 2025 | Aadhaar accepted for identity; Bihar final roll reaches 7.42 crore after removals and additions.9,38 |
| 27 October 2025 | ECI schedules SIR in another 12 states/UTs.16 |
| 20 February–10 March 2026 | Court brings judicial officers, then appellate tribunals, into Bengal’s disputed scrutiny.42 |
| 1–6 April 2026 | Malda judicial officers surrounded; Court rebukes administration and orders NIA investigation.45 |
| April 2026 | Bengal removals near 90.8 lakh; tribunal clearance permitted until two days before polling.41,43 |
| 14–27 May 2026 | Third SIR phase announced; Court upholds Bihar exercise’s authority and safeguards.2,16 |
| July–1 September 2026 | Online Form 6 add-on contested; Delhi and Maharashtra draft rolls contract sharply.5,10 |
| 11 August–18 September 2026 | Bengal tribunal portal complaints recorded; ECI reply discloses 22.21 lakh exclusion appeals.42,44 |
| 23–30 September 2026 | Commissioners’ objections reported; ECI announces review and enrolment drive; INDIA coordinates protests.10,15,16,18 |
| 2–4 October 2026 | Delhi protests and journalist complaints; Mumbai youth and Thackeray marches; Lucknow detentions.17,21,24,27 |
| 5 October 2026 | Court disclaims approval of modified Form 6, issues notices, declines immediate CEC suspension.12,13 |
| 6 October 2026 | MPs march; Rahul and Priyanka detained. Bengal portal investigation published; Bhagat duty charge withheld.19,20,33,44 |
00000
Sources and reporting notes
1. Who gets to vote? Forms 6, 7 and SIR. Syed Ali Mujtaba, Counterview; 6 October 2026.
2. ADR v ECI, 2026 INSC 564: official judgment summary. Supreme Court of India; 27 May 2026.
3. Prescribed Form 6 and Form 7. Election Commission of India; Current published forms. Second document
4. Obstacle race: reported 13.4 crore draft omissions. Civilsdaily, contemporary editorial digest; 3 October 2026.
5. SIR draft rolls: over 13 crore omissions; Delhi leads. The Indian Express; 1 September 2026.
6. Representation of the People Act, 1950. Legislative Department, election-law compilation; Sections 13CC, 20, 22, 24 and 31.
7. Court allows continuation; considers additional documents. The Indian Express; 10 July 2025.
8. Publish excluded names with reasons: Supreme Court. The Indian Express; 14 August 2025.
9. Aadhaar accepted as twelfth identity document. The Indian Express; 8 September 2025.
10. 14 recorded objections in ten months. The Indian Express investigation; 23 September 2026.
11. ECI defends additional declaration; calls claim misleading. The New Indian Express; 5 October 2026.
12. Modified Form 6 not approved by Court: CJI. LiveLaw, Debby Jain; 5 October 2026.
13. Notices issued; ex parte CEC suspension refused. LiveLaw, Debby Jain; 5 October 2026.
14. Court seeks records of disputed decisions. India Today, Aneesha Mathur; 5 October 2026.
15. EC orders left-out voter drive; Goa restoration case. The Indian Express; Report published 2 October; updated 5 October 2026.
16. September 26 ECI announcement: hearings, review, deadlines. Moneycontrol, reporting ECI release; 26 September 2026.
17. Youth-led Cockroach Janta Party protests. Reuters; 2 October 2026.
18. INDIA bloc action plan: district marches and rallies. The Indian Express; 30 September 2026.
19. Opposition MPs march towards Election Commission. Reuters; 6 October 2026.
20. Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi detained: television reports. Reuters; 6 October 2026.
21. Thackerays lead Virat Garjana Morcha. The Indian Express; 4 October; updated 5 October 2026.
22. Mumbai Police FIR against march organisers. The Times of India; 4 October 2026.
23. Moving Delhi protests, FIRs and media advisory. The Indian Express; 6 October 2026.
24. Women journalists’ complaints; Crime Branch inquiry. The Indian Express; 4 October 2026.
25. DUJ–KUWJ signed statement on alleged harassment. Press release, Countercurrents; 4 October 2026.
26. ‘If even the press is not safe, who is?’. Counterview, supplied report; indexed coverage; 5 October 2026.
27. SP asthikalash procession stopped in Lucknow. Navbharat Times / Lipi; 2 October 2026.
28. What three Karnataka Form 7 FIRs allege. The Indian Express; 2 October 2026.
29. BJP delegation seeks evidence-based review of FIRs. The Indian Express; 3 October; updated 4 October 2026.
30. Karnataka CEO promises inquiry; Patil granted bail. The Indian Express; 5 October 2026.
31. UT Division responsibilities, including Delhi Police. Union Ministry of Home Affairs; Current official description.
32. Commissioners Act, 2023: Section 18. Gazette of India text, reproduced by Gazette Tracker; 28 December 2023.
33. Bhagat’s additional duty charge withheld. The Indian Express; 6 October 2026, 12:41 IST update.
34. BJD sends representatives to anti-CEC protest. The Indian Express; 6 October 2026, 12:57 IST update.
35. UP final roll: net reduction and draft-to-final additions. The Times of India, quoting the state CEO; 10–11 April 2026.
36. Constitution of India: Articles 325 and 326. Legislative Department, Government of India; Official constitutional text.
37. First-time voter clause puts 1.52 crore Maharashtra electors in a bind. The Times of India; 4 October 2026.
38. Bihar SIR outcome: final electoral roll published. Election Commission of India, via PIB; 30 September 2025.
39. Bihar final roll: 7.42 crore voters, gross deletions and additions. The Indian Express; 30 September–1 October 2025.
40. Rahul Gandhi launches Voter Adhikar Yatra in Bihar. The Indian Express; 17–18 August 2025.
41. Over 90 lakh names removed from Bengal rolls. The Times of India; 8 April 2026.
42. EC court reply: 22 lakh deleted Bengal voters appealed. The Indian Express; 20 September 2026.
43. Court permits supplementary Bengal rolls for successful appeals. The Indian Express; 16 April 2026; updated 23 April.
44. Bengal tribunal judges flag gaps in EC portal. The Indian Express; 6 October 2026.
45. Malda judicial officers’ gherao: Court transfers FIRs to NIA. The Indian Express; 6–7 April 2026.
46. Rahul Gandhi questions Maharashtra voter additions. Reuters; 7 February 2025.
47. ECI response to Congress on Maharashtra electoral rolls and turnout. Election Commission of India; paragraphs 13.1–13.6; 24 December 2024.
48. ECI explains Bihar SIR phases and documentary requirements. Election Commission of India, Press Note ECI/PN/240/2025; 3 July 2025.
49. How Bihar SIR changed after court intervention and field feedback. The Indian Express; 1 October 2025.
About The Author
Prof. Ujjwal K. Chowdhury is a senior academic, institution-builder, and political analyst based out of Kolkata, India.
Latest News
ePaper
Advertisement
