An independent commission, chaired by former judges A. K. Patnaik, Rekha Sharma, and Anjana Prakash, held a public hearing on Thursday to review mounting complaints regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Citizens from Delhi, West Bengal, Telangana, and Bihar appeared before the panel to testify under oath that their names were struck from voter lists despite having submitted valid documentation for enrolment.
The hearing shed light on the personal and systemic impact of these deletions. Among the witnesses, Maya Devi, a 58-year-old resident of Mayur Vihar, described her struggle to remain on the electoral rolls. Having lived in the area since she was 13 and having voted consistently, she found her name and that of her daughters missing. She recounted failed attempts to seek assistance from local officials, stating, “Pehle vote gaya, phir jhuggi gayi,” noting that her name disappeared shortly before her shanty was demolished.
Presentations from advocacy groups like Voter Adhikar Manch and Jan Sarokar detailed the scale of the issue in the national capital. Data indicated that while the January 2025 voter rolls contained over 1.5 crore names, roughly 11 lakh were removed during monthly purges in the first half of 2026. A further 47 lakh voters were excluded from the draft rolls released on August 31, raising concerns about the rigor of the verification process.
Other witnesses highlighted historical anomalies in the deletion process. Former West Bengal MP Tarun Mondal questioned how his name could be removed when he had served as an elected representative, noting the difficulty of reconciling his political tenure with his sudden exclusion from the voter list. Similarly, residents of Delhi’s Bela Estate testified that despite their families having lived in the area for generations and submitting hundreds of enrolment forms, they continue to be classified as encroachers.
The panel specifically examined the role of “logical discrepancies” used to challenge voter eligibility. Experts noted that criteria such as narrow age gaps between parents and children or unusual sibling counts were used to flag voters. However, critics argued that relying on artificial intelligence to identify these patterns often ignores local social contexts, such as early marriage and motherhood. Findings from the Voter Adhikar Manch suggested that such criteria may have disproportionately targeted Muslim voters in Delhi and Karnataka.
To mitigate these systemic flaws, the independent commission suggested moving away from an exclusive reliance on individual claims. They recommended that authorities read draft rolls aloud at community gatherings, allowing residents to collectively identify errors, duplications, or misclassifications before the final lists are published. This, the commission argued, would provide more transparency than current bureaucratic procedures.
In response to the growing controversy, election authorities have adjusted their verification protocols. Following a surge in notices issued in September—which affected nearly 33 lakh people in Delhi, including several high-profile political figures—officials have moved toward door-to-door verification. Booth Level Officers are now tasked with collecting documentation directly from homes, an effort that has reportedly verified over 60% of those previously flagged. This shift is intended to resolve minor errors, such as spelling mistakes, without requiring citizens to attend formal government hearings, ahead of the final publication of the electoral rolls on December 4.
Comments