The Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has become a contentious test of public confidence in India’s electoral institutions. Supporters see it as a necessary exercise to identify deceased, duplicate, shifted and otherwise ineligible electors. Critics fear that a process intended to clean voter lists could exclude eligible citizens, particularly migrants, poorer households and people unable to navigate documentation requirements. Both concerns deserve scrutiny.
SIR is not a new mechanism. The ECI has historically undertaken intensive revisions, while the ordinary process of updating electoral rolls continues between elections. Under Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Commission administers elections, while eligibility to register as a voter depends on statutory conditions, including Indian citizenship, age and ordinary residence. The ECI’s constitutional independence, however, does not exempt its decisions from judicial review or its procedures from public scrutiny.
The numbers explain the present controversy. In Delhi, the draft roll published on August 31, 2026, contained approximately 97.53 lakh electors, against a pre-revision electorate of 1.45 crore. Around 47.56 lakh names did not appear in the draft list, a reduction of nearly 33%. The ECI’s enumeration process classified missing forms under categories including absent, shifted, deceased, duplicate and other cases. These are provisional exclusions from the draft roll, not proof that every person concerned was an illegal voter. Nor does the absence of an enumeration form, by itself, establish that an individual is ineligible.
The distinction matters when interpreting claims about illegal immigration and electoral fraud. A duplicate entry, a deceased elector, a person who has moved and a non-citizen are different categories requiring different evidence. As of October 9, 2026, the available figures cited here do not establish a verified nationwide count of illegal immigrants conclusively identified through SIR. Treating the total number of names missing from draft rolls as the number of fraudulent or foreign voters would therefore be misleading. Equally, assuming that every excluded name belongs to an eligible citizen would go beyond the evidence.
The Commission has introduced measures to address concerns, including online services through its voter portal, claims and objections procedures, verification by electoral registration officials and additional enrolment drives. In Delhi, more than 10.28 lakh notices had been disposed of by early October, while special camps and additional assistance were being arranged for people left off the draft list. These steps demonstrate that correction mechanisms exist, although their effectiveness must be judged by how easily eligible voters can actually restore their names.
Yet serious questions remain. On October 5, the Supreme Court sought explanations from the ECI and the Union government over challenges to the revision. The following day, it clarified that it had not approved a modified version of Form 6 and sought records concerning the authorisation of changes to the online form. The ECI has maintained that the statutory form itself was not amended and that the disputed declaration was a separate SIR-related requirement. The issue now requires documentary clarification, not competing political assertions.
There are also practical concerns. Migrant workers may be away when Booth Level Officers visit; homeless people and residents of informal settlements can be difficult to locate; and discrepancies in names, ages or family records can trigger notices. The fact that appeals are available does not eliminate the risk of wrongful exclusion. A remedy is meaningful only when citizens receive clear notice, understand what evidence is required and can access an official without disproportionate expense or delay. Opposition parties are therefore justified in demanding transparent criteria, independently auditable figures and safeguards against arbitrary deletion. Allegations of deliberate political manipulation, however, must be substantiated rather than inferred from aggregate totals alone.
Former Solicitor General Harish Salve and former Kerala High Court judge P.N. Ravindran have argued that constitutional institutions should not be delegitimized through unsubstantiated allegations and that aggrieved voters should use established remedies. Their arguments reinforce an important principle: institutional criticism must be evidence-based. But resort to legal remedies and public accountability are not mutually exclusive. The ECI must also explain its decisions clearly enough to sustain public confidence.
The test of SIR is not simply how many names are removed. It is whether every removal is supported by lawful grounds, whether eligible voters can challenge errors effectively, and whether the final rolls are demonstrably more accurate. Electoral integrity requires both preventing ineligible voting and protecting every eligible citizen’s franchise. Neither objective should be sacrificed to the other.
