3 min readSep 4, 2026 06:26 AM IST First published on: Sep 4, 2026 at 06:00 AM ISTFour booths in one district of Jharkhand do not a national election make. But as an investigation by this newspaper has shown, their story is emblematic of how the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls continues to raise troubling questions. In at least four booths in Godda, a stand-off between election officials and BJP workers has thrown up a disturbing pattern: Of BJP workers submitting Form 7s in bulk, seeking deletion of names from the draft rolls. Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 7 allows an objection to a proposed inclusion, an existing name, or a request for deletion. The red flags here are unmistakable — bulk objections by BJP workers do not merely invite accusations of procedural violation, they raise the graver concern of targeted deletion of minority voters. Many of those marked for deletion had submitted the required documents, lived in the same house for generations, or were mapped onto the 2003 rolls. An inquiry has been ordered after this newspaper’s report but that cannot be the end of the matter. For, across states, the SIR increasingly looks designed not to clean rolls but to harass, and in the process, disenfranchise the vulnerable voter. It is distrustful of her, it asks her to establish belonging, or, more correctly, counter the accusation of unbelonging that is implicit in the exercise.Nationwide, the SIR has resulted in 13 crore deletions. This, after it shifts the burden of proof onto the voter, demands documents that are often difficult to access, sets unrealistic deadlines and, in doing so, makes the process itself the punishment. This must be owned by the Election Commission under the watch of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Some of the responsibility, with due respect, also lies with the Supreme Court. Yes, the Court intervened to ease the burden on Bihar’s voters — directing the EC to accept Aadhaar, nudging it toward giving reasons for deletion. Its record of protecting the EC’s institutional autonomy has been formidable in the past. But this time, institutional respect has given way to abdication. It has given the EC the benefit of every doubt, it has not asked of it the questions it needed to. In West Bengal, it contributed to the exercise piling up new layers, with the deployment of micro-observers, judicial officers, a bulky “under adjudication” list, and 19 appellate tribunals with no deadline after being set up too late. The Bengal appellate process goes on after the election is over. Those excluded remain in the dark about what comes next. Will it be detention, deportation, denial of benefits, prolonged litigation, or reapplication?AdvertisementThe electoral rolls need to be continuously cleaned and updated. But revision must never become a citizenship test, least of all in a climate where the spectre of the “ghuspaithiya” is politically expedient. That is what the SIR has become. An exercise meant to certify the voter has put her on trial. The EC and the SC need to ask themselves if they will let this terribly flawed process cast a shadow over their legacy.