When the Voter is Left Out

Meyu Changkiri The ongoing debate over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has largely focused on the powers of the Election Commission, the verification process and the political concerns surrounding it. These are important questions. But another deserves equal attention: what happens to a genuine voter who, for reasons beyond their control, is unable to complete the process within the stipulated time?India needs accurate and credible electoral rolls. Deceased persons, duplicate entries, ineligible voters and other irregularities must be addressed. But accuracy and inclusion must go together.The scale of the exercise makes this more than a theoretical concern. The SIR, which began in Bihar in June 2025, has resulted in more than 13 crore names being deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, according to The Indian Express (September 2026). These deletions do not, by themselves, establish how many genuine voters have been wrongly excluded. Yet the scale of the exercise makes it imperative to ensure that eligible citizens are not inadvertently left out. In West Bengal, around 27 lakh names were reportedly deleted following the adjudication process, with appeals subsequently referred to tribunals. The volume of appeals has raised further questions about the accessibility and timeliness of remedies for affected electors. When numbers run this high, even a small proportion of wrongful exclusions can affect a substantial number of citizens.Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are undertaking extensive fieldwork, often under considerable pressure, and their efforts deserve recognition. Reports of officials who have died or suffered under the strain of meeting targets, including a BLO in Madhya Pradesh's Jhabua district who died of a cardiac arrest a day after being suspended for alleged negligence, remind us that the pressure falls on officials as well as citizens.Citizens, however, live under different circumstances. People relocate, travel for work, care for sick family members or struggle to understand official procedures. Not everyone is at home when an official visits, and not everyone can make repeated trips to an election office. Such circumstances should not automatically put a genuine citizen's right to vote at risk.I recently wrote about my own experience in Shillong. After living there for more than 18 years, I had transferred my Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) from my native Changki in Nagaland to Shillong. In June, after moving into new office quarters in another locality, I discovered that enumeration in the new area had already taken place. There was no subsequent visit.Because my work requires frequent travel, resolving the matter was not easy. I visited my former polling booth three times seeking clarification. Eventually, through someone I knew in the Meghalaya Civil Service, I was able to establish where to seek assistance. My wife and I made another visit with the necessary documents. Our details were checked and cross-verified, and the matter was resolved.I was fortunate that I could keep trying. But I could not help asking: Who has the luxury of visiting a polling booth four times?The responses I received after the article was published showed that this concern was not mine alone. One reader described being in hospital with a feverish child during the first hearing and being away in Delhi on official work during subsequent opportunities. Another faced difficulties after relocating. Others shared similar experiences.Even people well placed to manage the system have encountered difficulties. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave reportedly said at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture in Kerala that he and his wife had received notices concerning their continued inclusion on the electoral rolls (Bar & Bench, September 28, 2026). Such accounts do not, by themselves, establish the extent of wrongful exclusion. They do, however, underline the importance of clear communication, accessible procedures and effective remedies for citizens who encounter difficulties.One response to my earlier article offered a constructive example. In one locality, young people proactively contacted residents, collected information through WhatsApp, helped print documents and facilitated their submission. Their initiative made the process easier. Such community assistance, working alongside the formal electoral machinery, deserves consideration.These experiences remind us that missing an enumeration visit does not necessarily mean that a person is unwilling to participate. A parent caring for a sick child, someone travelling on official duty or a family that has recently moved may all have legitimate reasons for being unavailable. An effective electoral system must provide reasonable opportunities for such citizens to establish their eligibility without unnecessary hardship.The paperwork can add to the burden. The controversy over Form 6, used by first-time applicants seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls, raised questions about additional information concerning parents or grandparents and their registration during an earlier SIR. For young voters whose families have migrated, or who cannot trace relatives' registration records from two decades ago, a straightforward application can become an exercise in documentary reconstruction.The Election Commission subsequently indicated that the original Form 6 would be used outside the SIR period. On October 12, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified that it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified form and indicated that it wanted to examine the relevant records. The issue therefore calls for clarity about the authority for procedural changes, the applicable requirements and the safeguards available to applicants. Electoral procedures must be transparent, consistent and proportionate to their purpose.The electoral process needs a practical bridge between the system and the citizen. Clear communication, accessible follow-up, simple status checks and reasonable opportunities for those who were genuinely unavailable can make a real difference. Technology can help, provided it simplifies rather than complicates the process.India’s mobility and diversity call for an electoral system that is both rigorous and responsive to citizens’ circumstances. Electoral integrity rests not only on accurate rolls, but also on accessible procedures, transparent decisions and timely remedies. While technology and centralised systems can promote consistency, local electoral authorities must be adequately empowered to resolve genuine difficulties within the framework of law.The Election Commission’s independence and credibility are strengthened by transparency, constructive scrutiny and a willingness to address legitimate concerns on their merits. Citizens, civil society and political parties share the responsibility of upholding this democratic commitment. Maintaining credible electoral rolls and ensuring that no eligible voter is inadvertently excluded are complementary, not competing, objectives.Ultimately, the strength of a democracy lies not merely in the accuracy of its electoral rolls, but also in public confidence in the fairness of the process. Safeguarding electoral integrity and protecting every eligible citizen’s right to participate are shared constitutional responsibilities. The true measure of the process lies in its ability to uphold both with impartiality, transparency and fairness. For a democracy to command lasting public trust, every eligible citizen must have a fair opportunity to participate, and no genuine voter should be left behind.