NOW that five states are going to the polls for their respective state assemblies, it is necessary to see the big picture. This is also relevant from the standpoint of the republican Constitution that we have. It is necessary to rekindle the memory of our readers because, amid the din over Hindutva-driven sound bites, an atmosphere is being created that we are almost there – the Hindu Rashtra. However, the fact remains that electoral democracy remains operative, as much a mainstay of the democratic secular system as it was at the time of inception –January 26, 1950.

The discourse on elections, whether we like it or not, has to be conducted on the basis of the framework that was enacted as part of the Constitution. The electoral system from the very outset had accepted that India would have universal adult franchise, unlike many European democracies at the time. The basic requirement for electoral democracy was that every adult Indian would be eligible to vote and choose their representatives, be it in Parliament or the respective state assemblies. In this scheme of things, the impartiality of the Election Commission of India, which presides over the electoral process, is an essential prerequisite. It is in this context that a ‘level playing field’ was emphasized in the Constitution itself.

The first Election Commission, headed by Sukumar Sen, actualised this concept through two crucial measures. The first was that the responsibility of appearing in the electoral rolls to be eligible to vote belonged to the Election Commission itself, and not to the individual voter. Secondly, one of the requirements—that one has to be a citizen of India—was not a verifiable one so far as the Election Commission was concerned. Only when a particular voter’s citizenship was disputed by some other citizen (possibly some of their neighbours) citizenship had to be verified by the Home Ministry.

We are in the middle of a major paradigm shift. Without disputing the wide powers of the Election Commission of India as enshrined in Articles 324, 326, and 327 of the Constitution, the determination of citizenship is not vested with the ECI. The paradigm shift in the run-up to the elections to five state assemblies underlines that the ECI has arrogated to itself the task of determining citizenship. Notwithstanding its wide powers, the ECI is not entitled to do so. The matter is still pending with the Supreme Court.

Pending the final word of the apex court on the subject, what we can, however, look at is the impact of what has happened so far. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process that was announced for Bihar on June 24, 2025, shifted the onus of being part of the electoral roll onto the voters themselves. Unlike in the past, voters had to fill in forms and, to ensure eligibility, had to either be a voter in 2003 or have one of their parents on the same electoral roll. The intense debate around the Bihar SIR underlined the stiff challenge that it posed in proving eligibility for ensuring a constitutional right.

The SIR process ensured 65 lakh deletions from the electoral roll as compared to what it was on the day it was initiated. This was bizarre and turned out to be an exercise in mass deletion. Given the minimal new additions, the deletions were so huge that overall, the numbers came down substantially. Now, with the SIR process for 12 states, it seems we are heading towards bigger disaster for the voting rights of Indian citizens. In the first draft electoral roll published, the total number deleted happened to be 6.56 crore. This is massive, an average of 13% of the total strength of the existing rolls. Interestingly, the highest deletion is in Uttar Pradesh, which is 2.89 crore. It is followed by Tamil Nadu, which is 90 lakh. The pattern also duplicates what happened in Bihar, that mass deletions were only accompanied by minuscule additions to the list. Comparisons show that the figures of the ECI do not match the population data. In the case of UP, there is almost a variation of 3 crore voters in rural UP, as brought out by the computation and intensive revision by the State Election Commission for over six months, which is responsible for the local body elections and which also happens to be a statutory body.

This large-scale erosion of voting rights seems unbelievable when one compares it with the result of the revision in Assam, which is not SIR. There have been virtually no deletions in Assam. Therefore, from the standpoint of universal voting rights, the rationale for this exercise can only be explained by outrageous mass disenfranchisement.

Electoral roll revision is otherwise a routine exercise, with the addition of new voters and removal of the deceased based on records and rectification of errors. Obviously, it is incremental and largely additive. Democracies all over assume that electorates grow. The net decline of voters of such a magnitude can be explained only by three elements—mass deaths, mass emigration, or mass disenfranchisement. During the period of the SIR process, there has not been any catastrophic mortality or immigration outside the country commensurate with such levels. In fact, internal immigration also cannot explain such magnitude because it can, at best, indicate relocation not a loss of franchise.

To sum up, the conduct of the ECI during this period has been the most non-transparent and it has stonewalled questions raised by political parties as well as independent experts, observers and the vanishing tribe of independent media. The only explanation is, therefore, inescapable – there is a huge design defect in the SIR process, which has led to this disaster. The question of a ‘level playing field’ cannot be decided as one for the political parties, but primarily for the individual voter and their constitutional right. Since the ECI has not come out with any explanation, not to speak of any inclusive consultative process to initiate the exercise on such a massive scale, this question must figure during the ensuing electoral battle. This is all the more so, because the ECI could neither furnish documentary evidence of the process initiated nor the details of the 2002/03 exercise.

Sometime back, the Home Minister had asserted that infiltrators must be ‘detected, deleted, deported’ to ensure a free and fair election. However, the first draft electoral roll published for the 12 states, or for that matter the final electoral roll for Bihar, could not come up with any significant data on such detections. As the BJP was the only party which enthusiastically embraced SIR, it would be reasonable to presume that they are the only ones who are going to benefit from it. If news reports are anything to go by, concrete evidence quoted by such reports shows that the RSS/BJP machinery is being readied to add new names booth wise. The booth-level officers (BLOs) are being pressurized to help facilitate this process. The use of AI tools, software and agencies to upload the changes in the electoral rolls has not been transparently publicised. However, data does show gender and social group adversely affecting deletion.

Obviously, all these add to the possibility of large-scale manipulation. Therefore, the challenge for this round of elections, which has high stakes for the opposition, namely, the fight for ensuring a ‘level playing field’ and a free and fair poll, will be extremely massive. We must brace ourselves for taking up this challenge.

(January 14, 2026)