The Bombay High Court asked the Election Commission to cite the provision of law that empowers it to remove a voter’s name from the electoral roll without giving them a hearing. The court reminded the Commission that its fundamental mandate is to enable people to cast their votes.
There’s a deeper issue behind this question. The debate over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) typically revolves around the number of names struck out. But the bigger question than statistics is whose decision it was, and who is responsible if it turns out to be wrong. The real problem with SIR isn’t a single person or position but a system where decisions are made, but no one is responsible for them.
Fissures within the Commission
The Commission consists of three equal members, and decisions must be made by consensus or by the opinion of two. According to a September 23 report in The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi filed at least 14 objections in ten months, including four in one day. These included questions about control of IT systems and access to officials.
The most significant turning point came when the Supreme Court demanded clarification. Sandhu asked who had the authority to file appeals on behalf of the Commission and who had filed them. No one had an answer, neither Joshi nor the Chief Electoral Officer of Bengal.
The Commission’s position differs. In a September 23 press note, it stated that submitting dissent is normal procedure and that final decisions were taken unanimously. Three days later, it announced that agendas would be made public before meetings and minutes after. The meaning of this announcement is interesting: until now, all this was not public. This meant that if someone had asked, it would have been difficult to know who made the decision, when, and on what basis.
Responsibility in one place, power elsewhere
Lawfully, local election officials are responsible for adding and removing names. However, the actual access to the list allegedly rests with IT directors in Delhi. The conclusion is simple: those with legal responsibility have no actual control, and those with control have no legal responsibility. In such a system, every link can point to another if something goes wrong.
Removing names is cheap, returning them is expensive
Karnataka is a prime example; over 4,000 Form 7s for removal of names were submitted across several districts. Five FIRs were filed in the state on October 1, 2026, three of which involved right-wing party members; the Vijayapura complaint received no FIR at all. According to a Vartha Bharati investigation, a single booth in Madikeri received 61 bulk requests, all with Muslim names, and workers admitted that the printed forms were received from the party office.
This is where the real imbalance is evident. Filling out a form is all it takes for a person to file an objection, and if they’re wrong, there’s no cost involved. On the other hand, the person whose name is struck off has to bear the burden of gathering documents, attending hearings, and waiting for an appeal. According to former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Qureshi, misuse of tools like Form 6 is a crime punishable by up to one year, and even officials who assist are complicit. But when responsibility is divided at every step, the question of who will take action remains.
The same confusion exists on the court route
In Bengal, the Supreme Court referred the cases to judicial authorities. Of the 6 million voters identified for “logical inconsistency”, 3.3 million were retained on the list. Subsequently, millions of appeals were filed to have their names removed, and no one knows who was behind them. The statistics also show no one to be the mastermind: Suvendu Adhikari claims that 700,000 of the 2.7 million removed voters filed appeals, while the Commission’s figures put the number at over 2.2 million.
The Commission argues that the accuracy of the list is essential. In an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court, it called allegations of widespread deletions in Bengal “exaggerated” and motivated by political interests. This objective is legitimate, but a correct objective does not make the method accountable. A clean list and an accountable process are essential.
The most serious problem with this structure is timing. Elections are held on schedule, but appeals flow at their own pace. Anyone whose name is not returned before the election will not have their vote returned; the correction will only be made to the list, not the result.
Former minister R.K. Singh claims that 28.7 million voters were unable to cast their votes in the elections held after the SIR and demands a re-election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. This data and demand are his own and may be disputed, but the structural question behind it is valid: when it is impossible to compensate for votes wrongly excluded after the election, then precautions should be taken at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
Why resignation won’t solve the problem
Citizens and organisations at Jantar Mantar are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The anger is understandable, but analytically, resignation is not the solution. If the fault lay with the individual, it would have been resolved with his departure. But a structure that allows decisions to be made without public record, separates responsibility and power, and ignores wholesale objections will yield the same results with the next person.
Reform should begin with transparency: a public record of every major decision, including any dissent. This should also ensure that power and responsibility are consolidated, meaning that the person responsible for the legal decision also has actual control. At the grassroots level, the bulk filing of Form 7 should be investigated and action should be taken against false objections. Finally, the count and status of every appeal should be disclosed openly, eliminating any room for dispute over the data.
A LiveLaw report an independent commission, headed by Justice M.B. Lokur, constituted by the Lawyers’ Association for the Constitution, is a signal in this direction. It will examine the validity and effectiveness of the SIR and seek to submit a report by December 2026.
The voter list is not an official document, but it is the most everyday proof of citizenship. A process that leaves no one accountable for decisions about deletions serves not to purify the list but to erode trust. In a democracy, the burden of proof should rest with those tasked with enabling voters to cast their ballots.
| | 
