The chief election commissioner (CEC)’s claim that not a single appeal has been filed against deletions in the 12 states where the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is complete may sound reassuring. But it is not. Zero appeals do not establish that the exercise has been error-free. They establish only that nobody has filed an appeal through the prescribed mechanism.There are several possible explanations for that. Voters may not know that they can appeal. They may not know that their names have been deleted. They may not understand the procedure. They may find it difficult to obtain the documents required. Or they may simply decide that pursuing the matter is not worth the time and effort involved. The CEC himself acknowledged that the lack of awareness could be one reason for the absence of appeals. This makes the interpretation of the number important. If a large number of people face an adverse decision but few challenge it, the first question should be whether the remedy is accessible. The number of appeals cannot by itself establish the quality of the original decision.Also read: SIR: Aadhaar Architect Nandan Nilekani and Family’s Name Feature in Discrepancy ListKarnataka, where the exercise is underway, provides a useful illustration. When the draft electoral roll was published on August 24, more than 1.07 crore names from the earlier roll had been placed in the ASDDO category of absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, and others. Another 43.81 lakh voters were identified under the categories of logical discrepancies and no mapping, and were to receive notices for further verification.The scale of the exercise is important because it changes the meaning of the word “appeal”. For an ordinary voter, challenging an adverse decision is not simply a matter of pressing a button. In Karnataka, voters who receive notices are required to appear before the electoral registration officer (ERO) with specified documents. Even uploading documents through the facility provided in the notice does not remove the requirement of personal appearance at the hearing. This requirement has already generated concerns. Voters have questioned the limited time available for hearings and the requirement to appear in person when the discrepancy may have resulted from a record error or even a mistake made during the enumeration process. One voter who had completed the enumeration form and found her name in the draft roll nevertheless received a no-mapping notice. Another said the age discrepancy for which he had received a notice had resulted from an error by the Booth Level Officer (BLO).As of September 4, 43.81 lakh notices had been generated in Karnataka, but only 7.31 lakh had been delivered. More than 36.49 lakh were still pending delivery. If voters have not yet received notices, they obviously cannot be expected to challenge them. More importantly, Karnataka has not yet reached the stage at which the CEC’s zero-appeal figure applies. But its ongoing nature shows why the absence of appeals cannot be assessed in isolation from the accessibility of the remedy.There is another issue that deserves greater attention: the cost of compliance. Election officials may regard a hearing as a five-to-eight-minute exercise. For a voter, however, the cost is not measured by the time spent before the ERO. It includes travelling to the office, waiting for one’s turn, arranging documents, and taking time away from work or family responsibilities. A person in regular employment may have to take leave. A self-employed worker may lose a day’s income. A daily-wage worker may simply decide that the exercise is too costly. This is particularly relevant when the state places the burden of resolving an electoral discrepancy on the voter. If the discrepancy is created by an old record, a spelling difference, a change in the way a name is recorded, or an error during enumeration, the citizen still has to spend time establishing that the record is wrong.A few cases in Karnataka illustrate the problem. A Padma Shri awardee received a notice because his name in the 2002 electoral roll differed from the name appearing on his present documents. Officials subsequently resolved the issue. The case shows that a mismatch with a 24-year-old electoral record does not necessarily indicate that a person is an ineligible voter. For an ordinary voter, however, there may be no official intervention to resolve such a discrepancy quickly.The Election Commission has now said that senior citizens, bedridden persons, and those unable to attend hearings can seek alternative arrangements in Bengaluru, including deputing a family member or having officials visit their homes. That is welcome. But the fact that such an accommodation is necessary also shows that physical appearance can itself become a barrier to exercising one’s electoral rights.Also read: Karnataka SIR: Home Visits for ‘VIPs’, Queues For OthersThe CEC’s argument, therefore, needs to be turned around. Instead of asking why there have been no appeals, the Election Commission should ask whether every voter with a legitimate grievance has been given a realistic opportunity to raise it. That requires more than a formal appeal provision. Voters must receive timely notices. They must understand why they have been called. They must know which documents are required and what they can do if they cannot attend in person. The process must also provide adequate time and reasonable access, particularly for people whose work or circumstances make repeated visits to government offices difficult.An electoral roll must certainly be accurate. Removing dead, duplicate, or permanently shifted voters is a legitimate administrative objective. But accuracy cannot be judged only by the number of names removed or the number of people who challenge their removal. It must also be judged by how effectively genuine voters are protected from wrongful exclusion.The Election Commission should therefore resist treating zero appeals as evidence of a successful revision. The meaningful test is whether eligible voters whose names or records are in question can understand the reason, access the remedy, and have a fair opportunity to establish their eligibility. Until that can be demonstrated, “zero appeals” tells us very little about whether SIR got it right.P. John J. Kennedy is educator, columnist, and political analyst.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.