Congress Alleges SIR Could Disenfranchise Voters; Election Commission Says Revision Is Lawful

The party cites figures from six states and demands the suspension of the Special Intensive Revision, the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and an overhaul of ECINET. The poll body rejects the allegations.

The Congress has sharpened its attack on the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that it could deprive eligible citizens of their right to vote. The Election Commission maintains that the exercise is authorised by law and follows established procedure.

On Thursday, October 29, Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of being behind what he called a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters. The party repeated three demands: Kumar’s removal, suspension of the SIR and a revamp of the ECINET platform. These are the Congress’s allegations and demands, and the Commission disputes them.

The Congress’s case

Ramesh questioned the outcome of the exercise using figures from six states where the revision is complete or under way: Karnataka, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Kerala, Goa and Mizoram. According to the figures he cited, about 1,600 foreign nationals had been identified and removed from the rolls, even though nearly 10 crore people went through the process. He argued this raises doubts about whether detecting foreign nationals, presented as a key aim, is being achieved. He also said comparable data was unavailable for 20 other states and Union Territories because, in his words, the Commission had not asked for it.

Karnataka was a focal point. Ramesh said about 99.7 lakh names were deleted from the state’s rolls while 716 foreign nationals were identified, 545 of them from Nepal. The Congress asks whether the scale of deletions is proportionate to the stated goal.

These are the party’s figures and interpretations. They do not by themselves show how many ineligible voters there are or why individual names were removed. Deletions can include duplicates, deceased voters, people who have moved and other eligibility reasons, so the number of deletions should not be read as a count of foreign nationals or of legitimate voters wrongly excluded.

What the Election Commission says

The Commission has defended the SIR before the Supreme Court. In a joint affidavit filed on October 26, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, said all SIR decisions were unanimous and denied that Form 6 had been amended. The Commission says the SIR orders carry legal sanction and that differing views within an institution do not invalidate its decisions. It also told the court that a question about earlier electoral rolls was part of a separate declaration rather than an amendment to Form 6.

Form 6 has been a flashpoint. The Supreme Court has said it did not approve any modification to Form 6, which sits uneasily with the Commission’s earlier statement that the declaration had been upheld. The Commission has since withdrawn the additional SIR-related declaration from the online Form 6 in states where the revision is finished. The dispute is before the Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning and decisions taken during the SIR.

ECINET and transparency

The Congress has also demanded changes to ECINET, the Commission’s digital platform, citing concerns about access to information, the handling of voter data and how decisions are recorded. Its criticism grew after reports that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on several occasions over the past 10 months, many relating to SIR decisions. The Commission says the orders in question were adopted through established procedure.

The wider debate

The row highlights a basic tension in electoral administration: keeping voter lists accurate while protecting eligible citizens’ right to participate. A revision has to remove ineligible entries without wrongly excluding legitimate voters, and clear procedures, accessible verification and timely ways to challenge deletions help maintain public confidence.

For the Congress, the figures and reported internal disagreements justify suspending the SIR and changing its leadership and systems. The Commission says its process has a legal basis and that its decisions comply with the rules. Comprehensive data, clarity on why names were deleted and the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings will be key to assessing both sides’ claims.

Sources: The Economic Times, with additional reporting from Siasat Daily, Moneylife, Kerala Kaumudi and Deccan Chronicle.