Sixteen states and three Union Territories are being covered in the ongoing the third phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Reports suggest that a large number of voters have received notices to submit their documents and appear before Assistant Electoral Registration Officer.The primary reason is that so-called logical discrepancies are causing havoc. And it also appears that, this time, it is not only the unprivileged who are at risk of losing their right to vote.In Uttarakhand, for example, several retired IAS officers, including two former chief secretaries are known to have received notices on account of alleged discrepancies in their names recorded on the voter lists of 2003 and the current voter list. Even the Chief Electoral Officer of Uttarakhand has received such a notice.These officials have undergone the rigorous vetting of the Union Public Service Commission and spent decades in the IAS and other civil services, yet the ECI does not seem to be satisfied about their eligibility as voters.In Haryana, 83.6% of the state’s pre-SIR electorate are reported to have submitted their details during the enumeration round of the SIR, while in Uttarakhand, the share was 89.6%.In the 2024 general election, the Elector Recorded Percentage (ERP), i.e., the ratio of electors on the voter rolls to the estimated eligible population was 92.9% in Haryana and 99.1% in Uttarakhand. However, in the draft rolls of the SIR, this ratio has declined sharply to merely 76.2% in Haryana and 80.5% in Uttarakhand.Keeping in view the past trends in other states, these numbers may not change much in the final rolls.Major reasonsAs elsewhere, absentees accounts for the major share (more than 70%) of total deletions of voters in both states. Officially, many of these individuals had relocated to another city or state, were absent (or absent for an extended period in the case of Haryana) or they failed to submit their enumeration forms within the stipulated timeframe.It is a moot question if mere absence of an elector from the place of his ordinary residence during SIR makes him ineligible for inclusion in the voter list. Whether any period has been defined for this purpose is also relevant.Rule under the Representation of the People ActSection 20(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, (RPA) stipulates that persons absenting themselves temporarily from their place of ordinary residence shall not, for that reason, cease to be ordinarily resident in that place.Accordingly, the ECI Manual, 2023, clearly stipulates that temporary absence from the place of ordinary residence will not deprive a person of the qualification of ordinary residence, if they possess the ability to return and intend to return to that place.As no period of absence (after which an elector forfeits his ordinary residence status) is stipulated in the RPA or the manual, the deletion owing to being an “absentee” may clearly be in violation of Section 20(1A) of the RPA.The status of a voter as permanently shifted should only be ascertained from him, because legally, it depends upon his or her intent and capability to return to the place where they are originally registered as voters.It is not known in how many cases voters’ names were deleted from the draft rolls after receiving such a self-declaration from the person concerned.We are also not aware of any recent guidelines of ECI which define the period of “absence for an extended period”.We have repeatedly flagged the issue of ordinary residence, explaining that migration does not make a voter rootless, that the scale of voters being left behind is tremendous, and highlighting the human cost of SIR, a process that is excluding large numbers of voters by categorising them as absentees.At the same time, it appears as if the ECI has realised the lacunae in its SIR process. In Haryana, it issued advertisements clearly stating that absentees who were residing outside their electoral constituency on account of service, business, education or any other reason can apply for inclusion of their names by filling Form 6. The advertisement further clarifies that voters who have permanently shifted away from where they were previously registered as voters could apply at their new address.Implicitly, therefore, the ECI accepts that only a voter can decide his ‘ordinarily resident’ status.Now, whether this window offered by ECI for inclusion by filling Form 6 will be used by excluded voters will only be known once the final voter lists have been published.We know that many senior officers of the government (from all-India and central services) come from their states or parent cadres to Delhi or other places on deputation, which typically lasts for five years. Why should they be forced to apply as voters at their current posting instead of retaining their names in the voter list of their original place of residence?It would be a tragedy if they cannot even apply to register as voters at their original place of residence, as that entry would have been deleted on account of their being absent. As a result, now they cannot even fulfil the condition stipulated in the declaration on Form 6 that they should be ordinarily resident at that place, notwithstanding their intent and ability to return.Hence, even this window may be merely perfunctory, offering no substantive relief. If someone is away temporarily because their government job requires it, why should the election authorities treat them as though they have permanently moved?The position of a large number of impoverished and marginalised migrant workers may be even more precarious on similar grounds.Logical discrepancyIn Uttarakhand, 19 lakh voters, i.e., 26.7% of all electors presently on the draft rolls, have been flagged on account of logical discrepancies related to their age difference with parents, inconsistent spellings in different records, and so on. The question is, if the age gap with a parent is below 15 years or over 50 years, or if more than six children have been mapped to the same parents, what is the relevance of these facts to one’s right to vote? Why should these constitute a “discrepancy” standing in the way of an elector’s registration?Further, what document or documents would satisfy election officials to have the roadblocks created by these factual situations removed?As far as spelling mistakes are concerned, the less said the better. Many mismatches would be due to translation/transliteration errors from English to Hindi. Such mismatches should not be a concern at all, particularly when a person can be uniquely identified from details which are available for more than 99% of the adult population under Aadhaar registrations.Finally, if the voter lists of 2002 are so faulty, do the district collectors and other officers in charge at the time bear no responsibility for such allegedly gross errors?ConclusionIn West Bengal, SIR resulted in the exclusion of around 27 lakh names from the voter lists. Their cases are currently before the 19 Appellate Tribunals set up in March 2026 on the orders of the Supreme Court. Of more than 33 lakh cases filed (including nearly 7 lakh for deletion of included names), it is reported that in first 100 days, 30,000 cases were disposed of.Even if the tribunals manage to double this pace, it will take more than 15 years for all the cases to be settled.The plight of people who wish to contest their deletion from voter lists can hardly be imagined. We do not know the expenditure they are incurring to contest their cases, but it may well amount to a substantial section of their wages.In April, these authors had expressed apprehensions about using logical discrepancies to exclude people from social welfare schemes, even the National Food Security Act, 2008.Now, whether the enumeration under Census 2027 will remain untouched from the SIR exclusions is being eagerly watched.Sanjay Kumar retired as Additional Director General of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. N.K. Sharma retired as Director General of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Siraj Hussain is former Union Agriculture Secretary. The views expressed are personal.