India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a once-every-few-decades effort to “clean” the voter list, has metamorphosed from a procedural update into a national flashpoint of democratic distrust. Rather than a technical exercise to eliminate errors and ensure accuracy, SIR has, in 2025–26, become a politically charged, administratively chaotic and socially destabilising campaign that has exposed deep fault lines in Indian democracy.Formally, the SIR has been justified by the Election Commission of India as a constitutionally mandated exercise. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the relevant provisions of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the ECI issued an order on October 27, 2025, directing a Special Intensive Revision across nine states and three Union Territories. Following what the Commission described as the “successful completion” of SIR in Bihar, Phase II was rolled out as a massive door-to-door verification exercise covering nearly 51 crore electors across 321 districts and 1,843 assembly constituencies in Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, as well as the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry. The SIR was meant to update, rationalise and modernise electoral rolls. Yet, as draft lists emerged across states, the exercise rapidly escaped the confines of electoral management. From Uttar Pradesh’s unprecedented mass deletions to West Bengal’s allegations of coercion and harassment, from Madhya Pradesh’s tens of lakhs of voters quietly erased to Kerala’s growing confusion over errors and reversals, SIR has become less a technocratic correction and more a nationwide political and constitutional contest over a fundamental question: who gets to vote in India, and who is quietly written out of the democratic ledger.At its heart, SIR involves distributing “enumeration forms” to every eligible voter. The forms are used to reconfirm identity, age, address and continued eligibility. Voters must return these forms to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who upload them to the ECI’s digital portal. Based on this verification, names can be retained, added, or deleted before the final roll is published. Rolled out in November 2025 across key aforementioned states, the exercise ran into early 2026, prompting the Election Commission of India to extend submission deadlines amid mounting administrative strain. As draft rolls were published, the scale of disruption became clear: tens of millions of voters disappeared from the lists, often without transparent criteria or clear avenues for redress. In all, nearly 6.5 crore elector names were removed from draft rolls across nine States and three Union Territories in recent days.In Madhya Pradesh, 42 lakh names were removed from the draft list; in Chhattisgarh, 27 lakh were omitted; and even in Kerala, 22 lakh names disappeared in the initial cut. While some deletions reflected legitimately deceased persons, migrations, or duplicates, the scale of removals — combined with inconsistent documentation requirements and tight timelines — has fueled widespread apprehension.Bengal and the oppositionNowhere has the outrage been as intense as in West Bengal, where SIR has collided with a highly charged political environment ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. The ECI published a draft roll that saw millions of names dropped and nearly 14 lakh “uncollectable” enumeration forms flagged — a figure that grew rapidly as verification continued. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly lambasted the process, alleging 77 deaths and numerous hospitalizations due to the stress and confusion caused by SIR. Opposition leaders across several states contend that the SIR operates not as a neutral exercise in electoral hygiene but as a covert reconfiguration of the electorate itself, carrying profound demographic and political implications. In this reading, SIR marks a shift from correction to curation, where procedural thresholds and verification regimes risk selectively thinning the voter base rather than merely refining it. International reportage has echoed these concerns, noting that critics perceive the exercise as disproportionately affecting India’s Muslim population and other marginalised communities, thereby raising questions about equality, inclusion and the substantive neutrality of electoral governance.In Uttar Pradesh – India’s most electorally consequential state – draft SIR rolls show the scale of deletions dwarfing expectations. Recent reports indicate nearly 3 crore names removed from draft lists, suggesting an unprecedented reshaping of the electorate. The process even led to postponements of draft publication dates as administrative bottlenecks became apparent. BiharIn earlier phases in Bihar — another politically critical state where SIR was conducted in mid-2025 – the pattern was similar. The ECI’s first phase led to 65 lakh names removed from draft rolls, even as over 7.24 crore voters submitted enumeration forms in a three-month process. Final data showed a net reduction of nearly 50 lakh registered voters compared with the pre-SIR count, signalling profound changes ahead of the state’s assembly polls. These deletions echo beyond mere numbers. In some Bihar constituencies, electoral analysts point out, the number of deletions exceeds the winning margin in previous elections, raising questions about how SIR might decisively shift electoral fortunes. Disproportionate drops among women and younger voters are also noted: a pattern with grave political repercussions. Simultaneously, procedural inconsistencies have marred the rollout across states. In Tamil Nadu, deleted names have persisted in draft rolls even after death certificates were submitted, suggesting systemic glitches or implementation failure. In Rajasthan, on the other hand, authorities celebrated achieving 100 per cent digitisation of the voter roll under SIR – a rare positive story but one that still raises questions about the fate of omitted names and the mechanisms for their restoration. Many moving partsWith so many moving parts and political capitals at stake, the ECI has attempted administrative remedies. It has appointed special roll observers, revised timelines in six states, and even increased incentives for poll officials tasked with house-to-house enumeration. The switch to allowing Aadhaar as an acceptable document – following Supreme Court direction — was another attempt at procedural clarity, though it remains contentious in how identity versus citizenship is treated. Yet these fixes have done little to allay the broader crisis of confidence. Opposition parties from Tamil Nadu to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal to Bihar, have moved courts and launched campaigns, alleging SIR’s deadlines and requirements fundamentally disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters. In the Supreme Court, the ECI has responded by calling criticisms “highly exaggerated” and politically motivated: this reflects the constitutional stakes of the debate. In a dramatic escalation of the legal battle, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally appeared before the Supreme Court of India to argue her petition challenging the SIR process – a rare move for a sitting chief minister. Banerjee, who holds a law degree and has previously practised law, sought and obtained permission from the Court to appear as a “party in person”, making her one of the very few political leaders to present her own legal arguments in the apex court. In her submissions before a Bench led by the Chief Justice, she urged the Court to intervene to “protect democracy” ahead of the impending State Assembly elections. Her appearance reiterated the political and constitutional intensity of the controversy.Some of the most serious criticisms of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) concern deficits in due process and transparency. Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat has noted that the exercise was conducted in haste, without adequate assessment of time, capacity, or operational demands. Voters report poor communication on documentation requirements and deadlines, while Booth Level Officers themselves have flagged staffing constraints and technological bottlenecks. In effect, SIR reverses the constitutional presumption of suffrage under Article 326 by compelling citizens to re-establish eligibility, creating a disjuncture between the Election Commission’s stated commitment to inclusive electoral rolls and its administrative practice. Though the ECI insists SIR is unrelated to citizenship verification, its consequences: anxiety among migrant communities, expanded identity demands, and large-scale deletions, echo exclusionary patterns seen earlier in citizenship-linked exercises.Judicial oversight has therefore become a critical site of contestation. The Supreme Court has sought to reinforce procedural fairness by directing the disclosure of reasons for deletions and permitting Aadhaar as a supporting document, yet continuing litigation highlights the fragile balance between electoral integrity and mass disenfranchisement. With major elections due in 2026 and 2027, the credibility of electoral rolls is foundational to democratic legitimacy: electoral accuracy shapes political voice itself. The SIR episode thus reveals deeper institutional strains: an Election Commission under pressure from scale and digitisation, political incentives to weaponise procedure, and citizens bearing the costs of systemic failure. At stake is not merely administrative reform but a normative question central to Indian democracy: whether modernisation can proceed without exclusion, and whether electoral governance can be strengthened without eroding the universality of the franchise.Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst and columnist. He posts on X @ens_socialis.