Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar said the process starting tomorrow will cover 12 states, including West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which are scheduled to go to polls next year. He said all Chief Electoral Officers and District Election Officers have been directed to meet political parties within two days and brief them about the SIR process. The first phase completed in Bihar reportedly ended with “zero appeals”.
However, this claim has faced skepticism by opposition parties.
Congress spokesperson Sujata Paul accused the Election Commission of favoring the BJP and said the Bihar revision process has disenfranchised about 65 lakh voters. “If it is successful, then clearly the government at the Center is illegitimate because those 65 lakh voters were also part of the Lok Sabha list,” he said. Paul said the commission has failed to address concerns over duplicate voters and missing names, and has ignored the issues faced by the migrant population.
He also questioned the short appeal window of one month after the draft rolls are published and argued that the process could not be “foolproof”. “Democracy thrives on the system of asking questions so as to strengthen them. When a political party unconditionally supports such an exercise, it naturally creates suspicion,” he said.
However, BJP spokesperson Syed Zafar Islam rejected the allegations as “baseless” and said the opposition’s fears were politically motivated. “The Election Commission is only trying to ensure that the voter list is clean, transparent and accurate. Those who have died or have migrated should be removed from the list. This initiative is fair to all political parties,” he said.
Islam stressed that the ECI has invited feedback from all parties and is open to suggestions to improve the process. “This mindset should change that whatever the Election Commission does is wrong. It will act not as per political wishes but as per its constitutional mandate,” he said.
Political analyst Sandeep Shastri said the amendment was overdue, but stressed that the integrity of the process is as important as the outcome. “We must have a clean voter list, but the process must inspire confidence. Are we ensuring full coverage, adequate time for appeals and multiple identity proofs? Greater transparency and involvement of multiple stakeholders will build public trust,” he said.
The CEC has said the SIR aims to improve the accuracy of voter rolls across the country, with the next phase covering more states before the 2026 election cycle.
Below is an excerpt from the discussion.
Question: Sujata Paul, let me know your first reaction. One big thing CEC said was that when the draft rolls were released after the completion of the SIR process in Bihar, there was no appeal. And even now, a wider period of appeal will be allowed, and Election Commission officials will visit every household at least two to three times. Do you think the opposition’s concerns regarding this exercise have now been addressed?
Paul: We will have to wait and see what happens next in these 12 states and union territories. But as far as Bihar SIR is concerned, it was a complete failure. And if it is successful then obviously the central government is illegal, because the 65 lakh voters deprived of voting rights were those whose names were also in the voter list of the Lok Sabha elections.
Importantly, the SIR results in Bihar show that there are still serious issues. Questions have been asked about five lakh duplicate voters and about one lakh voters without proper names – “A, B” type entries appearing in the list.
Most importantly, when questions were raised about this, the CEC kept saying that it was the responsibility of the BLA to ensure reforms. But the fact is that it is the responsibility of the Election Commission to ensure that every eligible citizen is included in the voter list. Obviously this is not happening.
When you put the onus on citizens to ensure that their names are included, and then put the burden on political parties and their election officials, it dilutes the fundamental authority of the Election Commission as guaranteed by the Constitution.
He also did not tell what would happen to the migrant population which is not present in Bihar at present. Suppose some of them are unable to return to vote – is it fair to remove their names just because there was no one present in their homes to verify them?
We all know what happened when this case went to the Supreme Court and 11 documents were being considered. We now have to wait and see what actually happens. If you remember, the 2003 SIR was conducted after the 2001 census, which was a year before the Lok Sabha elections and two years before the assembly elections in Bihar. But where is that data now? Why was the latest census not completed? There are a lot of questions, and we have to see what the actual plan of the Election Commission is – because it seems to be working for the BJP.
Question: Zafar Islam, how do you react to Sujata Paul’s point? The opposition, including DMK’s Stalin, has alleged that the BJP, the NDA and the Election Commission are trying to disenfranchise voters – especially those who are unlikely to vote for the BJP. They say that it targets minorities and backward classes. How do you react?
Islam: This is absolutely baseless. There is no truth in the allegations of opposition parties.
We welcome this initiative of the Election Commission as it aims to ensure that the electoral roll is clean, transparent and free from any discrepancies. The intention is to ensure that all data is accurate, and this accuracy can only be achieved through this SIR exercise.
This process will ensure that names of people who have died or migrated are removed from the list. Many names still persist, even if those individuals have died or changed places of residence. The names of those who now vote in another state should also be removed from their previous location.
Our position is clear: we support any initiative of the Election Commission to clean and update the voter list. It is suitable for every party, not just one party. Then everyone will know that the list is clean and duplicate-free.
If the opposition has any concerns then they should talk to the Election Commission. The Election Commission is already consulting all political parties and taking their feedback before carrying out the exercise. If any party still feels aggrieved, he can approach the court.
But the idea that the names of dead or displaced people should remain on the list is absurd. Those names should be removed. That is why we support this fair, accurate and transparent initiative.
Question: Sandeep Shastri, how important was it to conduct this exercise? The last time this happened 21 years ago was in 2004. CEC said that special intensive revision has been done eight times in our electoral history. While politicians – especially the opposition – have objections, how important is this practice?
Shastri: I would strongly support what both my co-panelists said, because what they said is important. There is no doubt that we should have a clean voter list. Those who have passed away should be removed; People who no longer live in an area, or who have names in more than one place, should also be removed. Errors of omission and commission need to be corrected.
Although the need for such an exercise is beyond doubt, what I would like to emphasize is another “SIR” – Certainty, Identification and Results. Process assurance is important. Are we confident that this process will instill confidence among citizens? Have we made sure everyone is covered, given adequate time and treatments are available?
Second, have we ensured that multiple valid proofs of identity can be used? The Supreme Court had earlier said that Aadhaar should be accepted, so are we allowing that flexibility?
Ultimately, will this exercise actually result in a clean electoral list? So yes, revising the rolls is important – but the process must inspire confidence and ensure a fair outcome.
Watch the attached video for the full discussion.