In a democracy, the relationship between the state and its citizens is directly marked by connecting, acting as a primary means with elections through which this engagement is used. The authority of the state is not self-influenced; It flows through the collective will of the people expressed through voting work. As Ambedkar’s thinkers have emphasized in various contexts from Loke, the state’s legitimacy rests on the consent and belief of the state. It not only creates an authority, but is also a duty of the state to ensure that only eligible citizens are given the opportunity to vote independently, fair and meaningful. Failure to do so, whether through neglect or manipulation, is the amount of failure of the main democratic responsibility of the state.
The first step to maintain the election process is a pure electoral roll, which is not only an obligation, but a non-conversion requirement for the great existence of democracy. Keeping this mandate in mind, the Commission decided to make a special intensive amendment of the electoral rolls across the country, which began with Bihar, directed by the main objective that “no eligible voters have been left and no unqualified voter is included in the electoral role.”
To achieve this, the legal structure provides for two separate functioning: summary modification, in which the existing roll is published as a draft and updated with additions and deletion; And intensive amendment, which includes preparation of rolls from scratches. While the summary amendment has been adopted mainly for administrative convenience in recent years, the commission, paying attention to the demographic profile to be developed, chose to increase urbanization, and the increasing pattern of migration, choose a more rigorous path of special intensive modification. This decision reflects the commission’s commitment to maintain the sanctity and integrity of the electoral roll, which forms the basis of any reliable democratic practice. This exercise is not only being done to ensure that all eligible citizens are included, but also to verify that they are enrolled which meet all the conditions prescribed under the Representation of the Constitution and the Representation 1950, and are not unworthy to be registered as voters.
While the debate should have focused on why such important practice was not done for more than two decades, the story has moved to question its time – now why – when the real question should have been there, why not before. The feeling of apprehension is being broadcast by some quarters, suggesting that special intensive amendment (SIR) will result in large -scale dissolution. These concerns have been largely based on the belief that many citizens, due to poor access to migration, or documenting, will be unable to meet the requirements mentioned in the Election Commission (ECI) guidelines. It is argued that there is a shortage of documents required for lack of people in significant numbers and hence they can be excluded from the electoral rolls.
The Election Commission of India, fully knows that many eligible citizens may not have traditional documentary evidence, adopted a generous and inclusive approach, preparing the guidelines of 24.06.2025. Intentionally, the list of documents prescribed in it was not symbolic and complete, it is okay to ensure that all the legally permissible documents that establish eligibility conditions under the law can be considered by the Election Registration Officer (ERO). The underlying objective was to avoid exclusion and to accommodate diverse socio-economic realities of citizens across the country. However, it should also be understood that the Election Commission, as a constitutional authority, is bound to be strictly operated within the structure of the law set by Parliament. This cannot be done by design or conscience – a definite dependence on those documents that are legally imperfect or clearly excluded by the legal mandate. Its flexibility is widespread, but never lawless.
It is also appropriate to mention that from the first day of the notification, the Election Commission took active steps to ensure complete coverage through its area machinery and, as a result, the calculation team reached 99.8% of the voters – a figure that directly rebellls the claim of exclusion. Nevertheless, this is not the only important result of special intensive amendment (SIR). The practice also revealed that about 22 lakh names on the roll were of deceased persons, 32 lakhs were transferred permanently, 4 lakhs were unattainable or failed to present their calculations forms, and around 7 lakhs were registered at many places.
Overall, there are no 65 million voters in about 65 million electoral rolls. Significantly, about 61 lakhs of these were found to be deceased, permanently transferred, or already nominated elsewhere – those categories who are legally disqualified from joining the role. Therefore, these exclusions are not arbitrary but necessary reforms that maintain the legal integrity of the electoral process. For the remaining 4 million voters, despite repeated travel and efforts by the enumerator, they were not traced or submitted their forms. To address any unknown exclusion of these 65 million names, the Commission has provided an open window to file claims and objections.
The Commission has feared the possibility of leaving real voters, establishing a strong therapeutic mechanism. Any eligible citizen, whose name is missing from a draft role, can submit a claim for inclusion until a final publication on 30 September. This security ensures that the process remains fair and inclusive, without compromising on legal requirements for eligibility.
When the initial fears of mass disintegration did not become physical, attention was transferred to these figures as evidence of large -scale deletion. However, in line with its guiding theory that “no eligible voter should be left,” the Election Commission shared a complete list of such entries with the district representatives of recognized political parties, inviting them to verify or detect any person, whose names were wrongly removed. This outreach is particularly relevant to 4 million elections that could not be located during calculations. Despite this occasion, no adequate effort or contrast evidence has been produced by any political party to confirm the claims of wrong deletion.
Can it be called dissatisfied then? There is no answer. Instead, it suggests that an important part of the existing electoral roll includes individuals who are deceased, permanently transferred, or cannot be verified to be present in all. Instead of reducing the democratic process, special intensive amendment has strengthened it by identifying and correcting large -scale impurities. The exercise has not only confirmed the commitment of the Commission for electoral integrity, but also created an opportunity for stakeholders – which includes political parties and civil society organizations – which to help any remaining disliked electoral voters trace, especially those who were not found despite visitors.
In this important final phase, political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should rise above the unproductive debate and make creative contribution in the process instead. Instead of obstructing doubt or an attempt to amend, they should be actively assisted to involve any eligible voters and facilitate, which may have been left out of the draft role inadvertently. He has a valuable role in helping tracking the small remaining section of 4 lakh unattainable voters, ensuring that the door where possible, is open to the correct inclusion. This final-mile practice is necessary to remove any remaining apprehension.
It is important to clarify that until the publication of the draft rolls, no name has been removed on the land of non-availability of documents. Even during examining calculation forms, every effort will be made to ensure that no qualified citizen has been excluded only due to lack of documentation. In cases where documents are unavailable, the Election Commission has deployed additional force of more than 2 lakh volunteers in addition to 1 lakh booth level officers (BLOS), so that such voters can be actively assisted in the purchase of necessary documents from relevant government departments. In addition, no name will be removed without strictly following the three fundamental principles of natural justice – issuing a notice, providing an appropriate opportunity to be heard, and passing a speech order. Any electoral is still agitated by such deletion, it is also given an opportunity to appeal under a strong two-level appellate mechanism, ensuring that the process remains both valid and fair.
The Election Commission of India has contacted special intensive amendments to the electoral roll with dual responsibility of inclusion and integrity. Although it is bound to ensure that each eligible citizen is incorporated correctly, it is equally bound to prevent the entry of unqualified names that can distort the democratic process. The right to vote should be untoward for those who fulfill legal terms, but it loses the same right, if the roll is polluted by wrong entries. But democracy cannot allow those without legal eligibility to capture the same place in the role. In ensuring both correct inclusion and valid exclusion, the Commission is not completing two competitive tasks, but a integrated constitutional duty: protecting the sanctity of the franchise. The EC bus is doing its work.
