In May 2026, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs issued a warning to the Indian Government, stating that the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls might endanger democratic participation. They based their concern on the fact that about 52 million names had been deleted in 12 states and Union Territories, including 9.1 million in West Bengal. The Commission claimed that these deletions were part of a standard procedure for removing duplicate and ineligible entries, but the extent of the deletions raised serious concerns. International observers advised that, unless there was a clear reason, such extensive exclusions could undermine confidence in India’s electoral integrity and democratic inclusiveness.
The SIR, first introduced in Bihar on 24 June 2025 and now in use nationwide, is the focus of vigorous debate. While the Election Commission views it as a technical procedure for deleting the entries of deceased, relocated, or duplicate voters, its critics stress the importance of considering its political implications.
Opposition parties and civil society groups say that the timing and extent of the deletions show a wider Hindu-nationalist strategy aimed at reducing the electoral influence of Muslims. Since Muslims make up about 14 to 15 per cent of the population, or approximately 200 million people, they do not assert that the Commission deliberately targets any particular community. However, they do claim that the process has a disproportionate effect on areas with high numbers of Muslim voters, thereby changing the level of voter participation.
The argument arises from the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) electoral strategy, since, in several Lok Sabha constituencies, it regards the consolidation of Muslims behind candidates opposed to the BJP as a problem. In the past, the BJP and its predecessor concentrated on securing the support of Hindus, then split the anti-BJP vote by backing several candidates, and are now apparently altering the electorate through the SIR. Even though the SIR is presented as a neutral verification process, the scale of the deletions has led many to see it as an attempt to change India’s electoral demographics.
The Election Commission has not made available statistics on voter deletions by religion. However, reports suggest that there are high rates of exclusion in areas where Muslims are the majority, particularly in West Bengal. Official statements frequently refer to the SIR as being directed against “Bangladeshi infiltrators”, a phrase linked with Muslims. The Citizenship Amendment Act strengthens this view by giving preferential treatment to undocumented non-Muslims at the expense of Muslims. In May 2026, the Supreme Court confirmed the Commission’s power to carry out the SIR and to limit citizenship inquiries, stating that removal from the electoral roll does not mean the loss of citizenship, thereby addressing concerns about disenfranchisement.
The SIR has raised fears that the aim of ‘electoral purification’ may be causing widespread disenfranchisement. The number of names deleted is considerable: in Bihar, 6.5 million were removed at the draft stage, with a net reduction of 4.7 million after claims had been taken into account; in Uttar Pradesh, the figure was 20.4 million; in Tamil Nadu, 7.4 million; in Gujarat, 6.8 million; in Andhra Pradesh, 4.5 million; in Madhya Pradesh, 3.4 million; in Rajasthan, 3.1 million; and in Haryana, 3.4 million. In the second phase, the number of electors involved was about 510 million, bringing the total down to approximately 458.1 million. Opposition leaders assert that the total number of deletions across several states and Union Territories amounted to 130 to 140 million, compared with an electorate of about 940 to 950 million before the SIR scheme was introduced. However, there are large differences between the figures on the draft rolls and those on the final rolls.
Delhi has now become the focus of the SIR controversy, having seen 4.7 million names deleted from the draft rolls and 3.3 million voters issued notices regarding ‘logical discrepancies’ or mismatches. On 22 September 2026, Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned whether the notices had been sent ‘almost mechanically’, which in turn raised concerns about how the process had been carried out. Between late 2025 and mid-2026, Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised at least 14 objections relating to Form 6 applications and access to the IT system. The Commission has stated that these objections do not constitute formal dissent, yet they show divisions within the Commission over the procedures.
The controversy surrounding the SIR process has reached a boiling point. The Indian National Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, All India Trinamool Congress, and Communist Party of India have accused the authorities of “vote theft” and deliberate exclusion. Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal escalated the confrontation by demanding the arrest of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and calling for the cancellation of the entire exercise. Critics have described the documentation system as a “backdoor NRC”, on the grounds of legacy-roll matching, automated detection of discrepancies, and the use of AI-generated flags that have left tens of millions of voters in doubt. Since around 200 million Muslims are at the heart of the issue, the dispute is now about electoral inclusion, the independence of institutions, and the credibility of India’s democratic system.
In a real democracy, each valid vote is of considerable importance, since political equality rests on every qualified citizen having an equal chance to choose their government. The SIR controversy is worrying, as opposition members have stated that between 130 and 140 million names were affected across various states and Union Territories. Even though these figures represent different stages of the revision process and do not necessarily mean that people have been permanently disenfranchised, the situation is serious. It is a constitutional obligation to protect each vote, and matters affecting millions cannot be treated as merely administrative. Transparent verification is necessary to clarify who was removed, why, and how many genuine voters have been reinstated, thereby helping to preserve India’s democratic credibility. The number of exclusions in areas where Muslims are the majority is high, but the Election Commission has not released deletion data broken down by religion. Given that there are approximately 200 million Muslims in India, this lack of transparency adds to the suspicions.
The legitimacy of democracy does not rest on slogans advocating ‘purification’ but on ensuring that no eligible citizen is prevented from voting. If present trends continue, Muslims will be able to retain their formal status as citizens yet lose real influence in the process of forming a government. This is already evident from their underrepresentation, since there were only 24 Muslim members in the 18th Lok Sabha. The consequences go beyond a simple update of the electoral roll and affect the credibility of India’s assertion that it is the ‘world’s largest democracy’.
