The Election Commission of India has completed the second phase of its intensive revision of electoral rolls in 12 states, including three Union Territories, leading to the deletion of nearly 13 percent of voters from the lists in these regions. As a result, the total number of registered voters has come down from about 509.7 million to 444 million. The most significant reduction has been recorded in Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state, where the voter count dropped from 154.4 million to 125.5 million.
This large-scale revision highlights the Election Commission’s rigorous and impartial approach to cleaning up electoral rolls. The deletions include names of voters who have passed away, shifted their place of residence, or were found to be registered in more than one constituency. Such measures are aimed at ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the voter lists.
Earlier, several opposition parties had accused the Election Commission of working in favor of the ruling BJP and selectively removing voters from specific social groups. However, the removal of nearly 28.9 million voters in Uttar Pradesh alone has surprised both the ruling party and the opposition, as the affected voters are likely to include supporters from across the political spectrum. This underscores that the exercise is not targeted at any particular group or party.
The core objective of the revision is the complete purification of electoral rolls so that no ineligible or fraudulent voter remains. The Election Commission is constitutionally mandated to prepare and revise voter lists and derives its authority directly from the Constitution of India. As an independent and non-partisan institution, it operates free from government interference, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the electoral process.
While the Election Commission is carrying out its intensive revision, its authority has been challenged in the Supreme Court by opposition parties, who argue that the Commission cannot verify a voter’s citizenship. This is a serious question, but it can be answered quite simply: since the Constitution states that only a person residing in India who is a valid Indian citizen can be a voter, the Election Commission inherently has the right to verify citizenship. Essentially, the opposition parties are arguing that the intensive revision process is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is currently hearing this issue, and the Election Commission has stated that the Constitution grants it the full authority to verify citizenship.
India’s Citizenship Act of 1955 gives it every right to do so, and the Foreigners Act of 1946, which grants the central government the power to investigate foreign nationals, does not stand in the way. Of course, this is a matter for the legal experts and lawyers debating the issue in the Supreme Court, but from the perspective of a common citizen’s common sense, it can be said that it is the Election Commission’s duty to register only Indian citizens as voters. This question is directly linked to the sanctity of India’s democracy, because if the electoral rolls themselves are not clean, how can democracy remain pure? After all, the Election Commission was established by our Constitution makers to lay the fundamental foundation of democracy in the country.
Therefore, if the names of unwanted and unauthorized people are being removed from the electoral rolls, it cannot be blindly opposed merely for political reasons, nor can it be called an unauthorized attempt by the Election Commission. All political parties in the country should seriously consider that in a country where approximately four crore fake ration cards have been found, why wouldn’t there be fake names on the electoral rolls? Therefore, when the Election Commission is rectifying the electoral rolls only after demanding necessary documentary evidence from people, on what basis can it be opposed? In all 12 states—Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Lakshadweep—where intensive revision work was carried out, significant discrepancies were found in the electoral rolls, and in each case, it was found that a considerable number of previously registered voters had migrated from one place to another.
These included voters who had died but whose names remained on the electoral rolls. In Uttar Pradesh alone, 14 percent of voters were found not to be residing at their registered addresses, having changed their permanent residence. Approximately three percent of voters had died, and 1.65 percent of voters had their names listed in more than one location on the electoral rolls. Therefore, by continuing to include the names of such voters, what kind of democracy are we moving towards? If the Election Commission has removed voters’ names based on these three criteria alone, with complete impartiality, then what could be the purpose of creating such a huge uproar and questioning the Election Commission’s credibility, and what could be the meaning of calling this “vote theft”? It is noteworthy that in a small Union Territory like Lakshadweep, with a total of 57,813 voters, if more than 1,500 voters are found to be fraudulent, then what could be the number in larger states with populations in the millions?
Therefore, if the number of voters decreases by 18.69 percent and 15.18 percent in large states like Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, respectively, what is there to be surprised about? The decrease in the number of voters in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, where elections are due next year, cannot be attributed to favoring any particular political party.
