Neutral explainer · source-linked
India’s Election Commission is re-checking the voter list of almost every state, house by house. Supporters say it removes dead, shifted and duplicate names. Critics say eligible voters are being wrongly dropped. Here is what happened, day by day, with the sources — so you can make up your own mind.
Updated:
A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) rebuilds the voter list: officials visit homes, everyone fills a form, and people not matched to an older list may have to show documents.
It began in Bihar in June 2025 and now covers almost all of India. Final rolls in Phase II were about 5.2 crore names (10%) smaller than before.
The opposition and civil groups allege wrongful and opaque deletions. The ECI and government say it is a lawful clean-up, and the Supreme Court upheld it in May 2026.
SIR in 60 seconds
Most years, the voter list is updated through applications. An intensive revision instead re-verifies every elector. The steps below are where most disputes arise.
A Booth Level Officer (BLO) gives each listed voter a form. Answers are matched to the last intensive-revision roll (for example, Bihar’s 2003 roll).
People whose forms were not returned or matched are left out of the draft, with reasons such as death, shifted, duplicate or untraceable.
Unmatched or “flagged” voters get notices. Form 6 asks to add a name; Form 7 objects to one. Officers must hold a hearing before deleting.
The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decides each case. Many names left out of drafts were added back at this stage.
A person still left out can appeal to the District Magistrate, then to the state’s Chief Electoral Officer (Section 24, RP Act 1950).
In Bihar, people already on the 2003 roll mainly filled the form. Others had to show one of 11 listed documents — such as a birth certificate, passport, matriculation certificate, caste or residence certificate, or a government ID issued before 1 July 1987 — and, depending on their birth year, a parent’s document too. Aadhaar was added as a 12th document for identity in September 2025.
| Summary revision | Intensive revision (SIR) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who starts it | Voters file forms when something changes | Officials visit every listed voter |
| What is checked | Only the entries that change | Every entry on the list |
| Burden on the voter | Low — your name stays unless someone objects | Higher — return the form; show papers if unmatched |
Both sides
These are the main arguments each side makes, in their own terms, with sources. Listing an argument does not mean the evidence settles it.
Two decades of migration, urbanisation and unreported deaths left rolls with dead, shifted and duplicate names; the last intensive revision in many states was in 2002–05.
The Constitution limits voting to adult citizens (Article 326), so the Commission says it must verify eligibility.
The Supreme Court found the exercise lawful and proportionate because it has notices, hearings and appeals.
Claims restored many names: 84 lakh were added after Uttar Pradesh’s draft, and 21.5 lakh in Bihar.
The BJP and ECI say the “13 crore” figure counts draft-stage flags — about 2.8 crore dead and 1 crore duplicates among them — not final deletions.
It shifts the burden onto voters to prove eligibility, with papers that many poor people, migrants and women do not have.
It was rushed close to elections, with heavy pressure on booth-level officers.
Software flags such as “logical discrepancy” and auto-generated forms are opaque; their rules have not been published.
Deletions were large compared with victory margins, and some reports allege minorities were targeted.
The Commission’s independence is in question: the 2023 selection law and reported internal objections by two Commissioners.
The Supreme Court let SIR continue but ordered omitted names and reasons published, added Aadhaar as a document, brought judges in to decide West Bengal’s disputed cases, and upheld SIR’s validity in May 2026. New petitions about how it was carried out are pending.
Day by day
Each entry says what happened in two or three lines, with its evidence status and sources. Turning points are highlighted.
The selection panel becomes the Prime Minister, a Union minister and the Leader of the Opposition, replacing the Chief Justice of India. Critics say this gives the government a majority on the panel.
They are chosen by the new panel. Its opposition member, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, records dissent over how the shortlist was shared.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s dissent note had asked the panel to wait for a Supreme Court hearing on the 2023 law.
It cites urbanisation, migration, unreported deaths and names of “foreign illegal immigrants”. The 4.96 crore people on the 2003 roll mainly fill a form; others must show documents.
It asks the ECI to consider accepting Aadhaar, voter ID (EPIC) and ration cards as documents.
Judges say Aadhaar and voter ID carry a presumption of genuineness, while ration cards are easier to forge.
He alleges 1,00,250 bogus entries in this Bengaluru seat in the 2024 Lok Sabha election: duplicates, fake addresses, bulk voters, invalid photos and misuse of Form 6.
Booth-level officers find none of its 80 listed voters living in the small rented house. One says people nearby may have used the address as documentary proof.
The lists must be searchable by voter-ID number, and public notices must say Aadhaar can be used to file a claim.
Gyanesh Kumar gives seven days and says claims without one will be treated as baseless. He accepts rolls can contain errors and calls SIR the way to fix them.
Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav lead a roughly 1,300 km march from Sasaram, alleging that SIR will remove poor, Dalit, backward-caste and minority voters.
The Supreme Court says it proves identity but “shall not be accepted as proof of citizenship”, and officials may check that a card is genuine.
The ECI says 6,018 online deletion requests were filed in 2023, only 24 were genuine, an FIR was registered, and no member of the public can delete a vote online.
The ruling LDF and the opposition UDF both back it, calling the exercise hasty and warning that it could become a “backdoor NRC”.
After the draft, 21.53 lakh names are added through Form 6 and 3.66 lakh more removed — a net fall of about 47 lakh (6%) from June.
Investigators say a data centre in Kalaburagi was paid about ₹80 for each deletion application filed.
About 51 crore electors, including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Assam gets a separate process.
Tamil Nadu’s ruling party calls the exercise unconstitutional and arbitrary; the court agrees to hear it.
He says one Brazilian model’s stock photo appears 22 times. The ECI replies that no appeals were filed against the roll and asks why Congress agents raised no objections.
Turnout is 67.13%, reported as the highest since 1951. The result alone does not show whether SIR helped or hurt any side.
The ECI cites Assam’s separate citizenship provisions. Deletions on citizenship grounds there need an order from a Foreigners’ Tribunal or a court.
Media tallies count at least 11 BLO deaths in Phase II’s first weeks, with families citing work pressure; parties claim more. Officials dispute a direct link.
Deciding a TVK petition, it says states must supply the workforce and may replace employees who seek exemption.
The SIT accuses Subhash Guttedar and others of a plot to delete about 5,994 voters in 2022–23. He denies wrongdoing. A chargesheet is not a conviction.
About 2.89 crore names are not in the draft. Claims and objections can still restore eligible voters.
A later newsroom investigation finds 188 Form 7s in the name “Reshma”, all against voters of one booth. The UP CEO says the irregularity was caught and all were rejected.
Calling the circumstances “extraordinary”, it asks the Calcutta High Court to deploy judicial officers to hear voters flagged for “logical discrepancies”.
Gujarat shows the largest drop (68.1 lakh, 13.4%), followed by Madhya Pradesh (about 34 lakh) and Rajasthan (31.3 lakh).
The draft had 5.44 crore; 27.53 lakh were added during claims. Deleted voters can appeal to the District Magistrate within 15 days.
About 60 lakh more voters stay “under adjudication” while judicial officers decide their cases.
Of 60.06 lakh adjudicated electors, 27.16 lakh are deleted and 32.68 lakh kept. Appeals go to tribunals.
That is still about 2.04 crore fewer than before SIR, the largest drop of any state.
Analysts disagree on SIR’s role: Scroll finds deletions exceeded the victory margin in about half the seats the BJP won; a Hindustan Times analysis argues SIR was not decisive.
It includes Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Only Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are left for later.
It rules the ECI may examine citizenship for the voter list, but a deletion is not a loss of citizenship; doubtful cases go to the competent authority. Critics say it leaves voters with too little protection.
Three UN experts raise concerns about opaque methods and the exclusion of minorities. The Ministry of External Affairs calls the charges baseless and cites the Supreme Court’s approval.
The Indian Express says Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to SIR decisions taken without them. The ECI says key decisions were unanimous and the notes were “suggestions”.
They include mandatory agendas and minutes for Commission meetings, and longer SIR deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra.
The Commission says three of the remaining people are Portuguese citizens.
It issues notice on a plea that key SIR decisions were taken without the other Commissioners, saying it cannot act on newspaper reports alone.
It is his third detention in two days. The government and the ECI deny any political motive and say SIR removes duplicate and ineligible entries.
The Reporters’ Collective says ECI software created them under officers’ signatures after hearings. The UP CEO says they record decisions taken lawfully after notice and hearing.
The cap covers a whole claims period (five a month during routine updates), after reports of bulk objections in Karnataka and Odisha. Officers must hear each objector.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan moves the resolution; three BJP MLAs oppose it. It is reported as the first such resolution by a state Assembly.
They seek a pause in SIR, an audit of deletions led by a retired judge, booth-wise lists of deleted voters with reasons, and no deletion without notice and hearing.
Leaders of the “Cockroach Janta Party” movement are sent to jail for five days after climbing barricades into the grounds.
No order pausing SIR is reported. The court asks one petitioner, Sanjay Raut, to explain his conduct.
The Hindu finds 37 people who filed Form 7 to delete themselves as dead, and 334 pairs who filed against each other. How many deletions went through is not known.
Congress says 13,150 entries were altered after the final roll. The UP CEO calls it a technical discrepancy, removes an ERO and an operator from duty, and orders a statewide check.
A computer assistant is dismissed and every Form 6 and Form 7 they entered since 10 April is to be re-examined.
Scheduled, not yet happened as of the last update.
Where it happened
Each tile is a state or Union Territory, placed roughly where it sits on the map. Tap one to see its phase.
Tile positions are approximate and not to scale.
Phase I · Bihar. Ordered 24 June 2025; final roll 30 September 2025.
The numbers
Electorate before SIR and in the final roll, in crore (1 crore = 10 million). A smaller roll is not by itself proof of illegal deletion: it mixes deaths, migration and duplicates with any wrongful removals.
Case files
Each file sets out the claim, the evidence we could check, the response, and what remains unresolved.
The claimRahul Gandhi said 1,00,250 entries in Mahadevapura were fraudulent in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, combining duplicates, invalid addresses, bulk voters, photo problems and Form 6 misuse.
Where it standsAddress-level errors: reported. The total, any effect on votes, and intent: unresolved.
The claimThe opposition says 6,018 Form 7 applications filed in Aland before the 2023 Assembly election show an organised attempt to delete voters.
Where it standsFraudulent filing attempts: supported by the official record and the chargesheet. Guilt is for the trial court to decide; mass deletion was not completed.
The claimRahul Gandhi alleged 25 lakh fake entries in Haryana’s 2024 roll and said one Brazilian model’s photo appeared 22 times.
Where it standsDisputed. Examples of bad entries exist; the total is not verified. No appeal being filed does not prove the roll was accurate.
The claimThe draft roll left out about 65 lakh names, raising fears that people without the right documents would lose their vote.
Where it standsThe scale and the court directions are verified. Whether each exclusion was fair is a case-by-case question the totals cannot answer.
The claimThe TMC and critics say software flags pushed lakhs of eligible voters, many of them Muslims and migrants, into “adjudication” and off the roll before the 2026 election.
Where it standsThe deletion figures and the appeal backlog are on record. Whether SIR changed the result cannot be proved from margins alone.
The claimOpposition leaders and petitioners say about 13 crore voters have been deleted across the SIR phases.
Where it standsThe size of the flagged pool is agreed; how many eligible voters were finally removed is not known.
The claimThe Reporters’ Collective counted 87,127 Form 7 deletion entries generated under officers’ logins with no reason shown in public data, and called them bad in law.
Where it standsA real transparency dispute. That the software itself unlawfully deleted eligible voters is not established by public data alone.
The claimReports describe 188 Form 7s under one name in one UP booth, and thousands filed within days in Karnataka.
Where it standsBulk filing is documented in specific places. Successful mass deletion through it is not shown.
The claimAn analysis found 37 people who filed Form 7 declaring themselves dead, and 334 pairs who declared each other dead.
Where it standsA serious data-quality or misuse signal. Completed deletions and responsibility are unresolved.
The claimCongress alleged that 13,150 entries in Pilibhit had names changed under the same voter-ID and serial numbers after the final roll.
Where it standsThe errors and the official action are verified. Deliberate manipulation is not proved; the review’s findings are awaited.
The claimThe Indian Express reported that Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objected in writing 14 times in 10 months, including over Form 6 changes, deletions and software access.
Where it standsDisputed. Even if objections were made, they do not by themselves prove unlawful action or changed results.
The claimFamilies and parties linked several BLO deaths, including suicides, to SIR work pressure.
Where it standsWorkload strain is well documented; the cause of each death is disputed and needs official inquiry.
Law & courts
The ECI has wide powers over voter lists, but the law also sets procedures. A court order, a petition and a political statement are different things.
In plain wordsThe ECI superintends, directs and controls elections and the preparation of rolls.
Why it matters hereThe basis for SIR; it does not remove procedural safeguards or court review.
In plain wordsAdult citizens can vote, subject to disqualifications set by law.
Why it matters hereWhy the ECI checks citizenship; a software flag alone cannot exclude an eligible voter.
In plain wordsThe ECI may order a special revision of any roll at any time, recording its reasons.
Why it matters hereThe statutory basis cited for SIR.
In plain wordsSet out publication, claims, objections, notices and hearings.
Why it matters hereA Form 7 filing is not a deletion; notice and a chance to respond are required.
In plain wordsAppeals: first to the District Magistrate, then to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Why it matters hereThe route for anyone left out of a final roll.
In plain wordsMaking a false declaration in roll work is a punishable offence.
Why it matters hereFraudulent Form 7s can be prosecuted — as alleged in Aland.
In plain wordsOfficials who breach their duty in roll work can be punished.
Why it matters hereDisciplinary action (as in Pilibhit) is separate from a proven offence.
In plain wordsSets the selection panel and gives Commissioners immunity for official acts (Section 16).
Why it matters hereAt the centre of the 2026 independence debate; pleas about it are before the Supreme Court.
Before you share
No. Net change mixes deaths, migration, duplicates and corrections with any wrongful removals. It is a reason to look closer, not proof.
They can file an objection online, but an officer must verify, give notice and decide. Filing is not deleting.
No. The Supreme Court accepted it as proof of identity in SIR, not of citizenship.
No. The May 2026 judgment says a roll deletion is an electoral decision, not a citizenship ruling; doubtful cases go to the competent authority.
No. They can prove data problems. They do not by themselves show that someone voted falsely or that a result changed.
No. It upheld the power to conduct SIR. Individual cases, appeals and new petitions about implementation continue.
Not necessarily. It limits official testing of the claim, but is not a finding that the underlying concern is wrong.
Orders SIR, sets the rules and the software, answers to courts.
An ECI decision is not automatically a government decision; the specific order matters.
Visit homes, issue notices, hold hearings, decide each name.
A local error or disciplinary action shows an outcome, not necessarily intent or a statewide pattern.
Ordered transparency, widened documents, upheld SIR, hears new pleas.
Upholding SIR’s legality does not decide every individual deletion or allegation.
Raise claims, protest, petition courts; their agents (BLAs) can watch roll work.
A claim becomes a finding only when an official record, court or reproducible audit supports it.
Register FIRs and investigate alleged fraud, as in Aland.
An FIR or chargesheet is not a conviction.
Defends the ECI and SIR in public; answers questions in Parliament.
Sources reviewed do not show the government ordering specific deletions.
Still unresolved
How many people were finally removed in each state, by reason (dead, shifted, duplicate, non-citizen, unmapped, other)?
What rules and thresholds do the “logical discrepancy” and unmapped-voter software flags use?
How will West Bengal’s roughly 37 lakh pending appeals be resolved, and how many voters will be restored?
What did the statewide Pilibhit-style review in Uttar Pradesh find — software bug or deliberate entry?
When will the Aland trial start, and what will the court find?
Will the Supreme Court grant any relief on the INDIA bloc petition or the plea about the CEC’s decisions?
Is there independent evidence of statewide targeting of any community, beyond the localities reported so far?
Source register
Primary documents and official statements first, then court reports, investigations and news. Open the original and compare it with what is claimed.
How this guide works
Facts checked up to: . This is an independent public-information site, not an official ECI publication or legal advice. To check your own name, use the official voters’ portal.
Check your name on voters.eci.gov.in