The unfolding of SIR 2.0 evokes the timeless warning – Nero fiddled while Rome burned. As citizens face anxiety, uncertainty, and disruption, the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s leadership appears strikingly detached from the human cost of its actions. What was projected as a technology-driven effort to clean up electoral rolls has instead triggered widespread fear among voters. Evidence from multiple States points to flawed and inconsistently applied procedures, arbitrary departures from announced rules, poor preparedness, and weak inter-state coordination. Failures are systemic rather than incidental.Until 2004, SIRs were conducted in pen-and-paper mode, relying on field verification without third-party checks, which led to widespread errors in electoral rolls. To overcome these limitations, the ECI transitioned to a digital framework through ECINet, part of the Digital India initiative.However, despite known flaws in legacy rolls, the same defective data and outdated identity frameworks were used for SIR Bihar, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene and allow Aadhaar, while leaving core inaccuracies unresolved. Stakeholder concerns were dismissed due to the absence of formal appeals, ignoring voter fatigue and disengagement, even as the Court expected lessons to be learnt before scaling up. Nevertheless, SIR 2.0, projected as user-friendly and transparent, instead resulted in widespread confusion and chaos.Legacy rolls, missing namesThe central irony of SIR 2.0 is that long-standing, law-abiding citizens—many with decades of documented presence – are being asked to prove their residential status. This burden arises not from voter fault but from ad hoc SoPs that shift ECIs’ failures onto citizens. Requiring voters to trace their names in legacy rolls from 2002 to 2004 masks past deficiencies in electoral roll management.It isn’t easy to justify why a global IT leader cannot provide searchable digital voter lists using basic identifiers. While this has caused distress even among informed citizens, the hardship for migrants and ordinary voters – often lacking digital access or complete documentation – is far more severe. Thousands of voters who participated in multiple elections reported being unable to locate their names despite exhaustive searches through legacy entries.The missing names in legacy Rolls resulted in a large number of “non-mapped” voters whose records could not be traced due to faulty legacy rolls from 2002 to 2004. In Uttar Pradesh alone, about 8% of voters’ Enumeration Forms (EFs) were classified as non-mapped, reflecting administrative failure rather than voter fault and risking the conversion of a corrective exercise into a mechanism of harassment and exclusion. Compounding this, draft rolls did not clearly flag voters as non-mapped, denying them advance notice and the opportunity to prepare documentation.Draft 2026 rolls: Non-participants, non-mapped voters Non-mapped voters are being summoned for verification hearings at short notice under SIR 2.0, even though these flags often arise due to errors by the ECI, faulty standard operating procedures (SOPs), and non-accountable electoral officers. Citizens labelled “non-mapped” or “abnormal” due to defective legacy rolls, data migration failures, or opaque system triggers are required to defend their eligibility for faults that lie squarely within the ECI’s administrative domain.Notably, a Nobel laureate in his 90s was served a notice due to an age mismatch traceable to the BLO’s oversight. A former naval chief in his 80s was summoned, along with his wife, due to non-mapping. A former Police Commissioner of Kolkata, under whose jurisdiction SIR 2002 was conducted, was also found to be non-mapped. Members of Parliament (MPs) and the Director General of Police (DGPs) were similarly summoned. Do such individuals, and millions like them, need to prove their identity after serving the nation at the highest levels for decades?Reports suggest these hearings are poorly organised, intimidating, and procedurally unclear. Voters receive little notice, limited explanation, and no access to digital records, effectively reversing the burden of proof. For seniors, migrants, and the digitally vulnerable, this process is especially onerous and discourages participation. As a result, many genuine voters may relinquish their voting rights – not because they are ineligible, but because of how the process is administered.System-driven silent deletion There is growing concern that opaque algorithmic processes were used to flag voters as “abnormal.” Many deletions appear to have resulted from automated pattern-based triggers – such as perceived duplication or data inconsistencies – rather than verified field assessments. The criteria for these actions were never disclosed, nor was any data released on their scale or distribution, raising serious concerns about due process and accountability.A further anomaly lies in the procedure for restoring deleted voters. Regardless of the reason for deletion, re-inclusion is routed through Form 6, which is meant exclusively for first-time applicants and requires a declaration that the applicant has never been enrolled in any constituency.It creates a legal contradiction. Voters previously on the rolls – but deleted due to administrative error, legacy defects, or automated processes – are compelled to make a factually incorrect declaration. As a result, genuine voters seeking restoration are exposed to potential criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This procedural flaw shifts legal risk onto citizens for errors originating within the systemDraft 2026 rolls and voter disengagementDraft rolls included voters who submitted EFs through BLOs or online. Non-participants included those deleted due to death, migration, or loss of eligibility, as well as those who chose not to participate after finding the procedures intrusive. The share of such non-participants varied widely, with the highest rates in Uttar Pradesh (18%), followed by Tamil Nadu and Gujarat (approximately 15%), and the lower rates in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and West Bengal (7-8%).In Uttar Pradesh, 18% of voters were classified as non-participants, of whom nearly 14% – including migrants – disengaged from the process. This widespread withdrawal may be linked to the undignified manner in which SIR 2.0 was conducted. Faced with repeated summons for institutional failures, many genuine voters may choose disengagement over participation, turning a corrective exercise into one of exclusion and undermining the principle that accountability must rest with the authority responsible for the error.In addition, electors who submitted Form 6 for inclusion or Form 8 for a change of constituency due to address changes have still not been reflected in the recently released draft electoral rolls.Taken together, the experience of SIR 2.0 shows that the chaos was systemic. Irrational, opaque, and poorly explained actions—ranging from defective legacy rolls and non-mapped names to algorithmic deletions and legally inconsistent procedures—placed genuine citizens under avoidable stress and risk. The absence of publicly released data by the ECI or State officials only deepened confusion and fear, discouraging participation even among the most eligible voters. What was projected as a user-friendly, technology-enabled corrective exercise has instead become a source of widespread anxiety, particularly for seniors, migrants, and the digitally vulnerable.उत्तर प्रदेश की ड्राफ्ट SIR वोटर लिस्ट प्रकाशित हो गई है।इसमें मेरा और मेरे परिवार का नाम ग़ायब है।जबकि:हमारे नाम 2003 की वोटर में शामिल थे।हमारे नाम पिछले चुनाव की वोटर लिस्ट में भी शामिल थे।हमारे माता-पिता के नाम भी 2003 की वोट लिस्ट में शामिल थे।हमने चुनाव आयोग के…— Gurdeep Singh Sappal (@gurdeepsappal) January 6, 2026Wishful thinkingA democratic process works only when the ECI and voters are treated as equal pillars of electoral integrity. Trust and participation – not fear, coercion, or exclusion – sustain democracy. The key question is whether SIR is genuinely cleaning the rolls or risking large-scale disenfranchisement, contrary to the ECI’s core mandate to ensure no eligible voter is denied the franchise.SIR 2.0 demands a course correction: reforming SOPs, shifting from control to collaboration, and from punishment to facilitation. As Rome burned, Nero’s failure was the refusal to be accountable. In SIR 2.0, voters face fear, summons, and exclusion born of institutional errors, while the leadership remains absent. Unless responsibility, transparency, and voter-centricity are restored, the damage will extend beyond procedure to the foundations of public trust and the foundation of democracy.Rajeev Kumar is a former professor of computer science at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former scientist at DRDO and DST.