Extended deadline ensured accurate voter list: UP CEO

Uttar Pradesh is India’s largest state in terms of both the number of voters and representatives, and you will be holding elections from 2023. What are your experiences and what challenges have you faced?

When we started SIR we had more than 15 crore voters. The most challenging aspect is that we have 403 assembly and 80 Lok Sabha constituencies. Therefore, remembering the names of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), District Election Officers and issues of different districts or areas is one aspect which is different from other states. Second, Uttar Pradesh is also very important politically, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of people contesting elections from the state. There was a tough contest in the last Lok Sabha elections and before that in the Assembly elections, hence people are quite politically aware. Politicians are also very knowledgeable about electoral laws, and political parties and their cadres are also very active. So, in terms of dealing with complaints, the number is huge, and that makes the task more challenging than some other states.

The SIR process in Uttar Pradesh has taken the longest so far compared to all other states. It started on October 27 last year and the final list will come on April 10, i.e. about six months. Apart from the sheer size, what would you say are the other reasons that make it last so long?

The next elections in Uttar Pradesh are about a year away, so there was no hurry to complete the exercise in a short time. Thus, in order to conduct rigorous exercises, reduce pressure on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and EROs and reduce chances of errors due to time pressure, we had sought more time from the Election Commission (EC). In our five meetings since the announcement of SIR, all political parties also asked for more time. I think it has helped, as you might have seen there was some tension between political parties in the first phase. We had sent notices to about 3.26 crore people. This entire process has been conducted very smoothly because we have slowed down the hearing.

So, would the process have become easier if the deadline had been extended in other states also?

Conditions may vary (in other states). For example, Rajasthan was one of the states where it was conducted very rapidly. Therefore, political parties might not have asked for more time. Accordingly, the CEO would not have asked for more time. If he had asked for more time, I think the Election Commission would have given it.

In UP, we are yet to see the final list, but 2.89 crore names have been removed from the draft list, the largest number so far for any state. What is the reason for this?

One reason is that for many years people have not submitted Form 7 for deletion of names of people who have died or shifted from their place of residence. There were about 46 lakh people whose names were removed because they had died, about 30 lakh people were removed because there were duplicate entries, and more than 1 crore people were in the permanently transferred category.

The highest number of names have been removed from urban centers in the state. What is the reason for this? Also, have some people who had multiple registrations tried to retain their votes in villages rather than cities?

The voting percentage in urban areas is always lower as compared to rural areas. Generally people consider the reason for this to be urban apathy, but this is not the right or only reason. The second reason is that the voting area in urban areas is not well defined. New colonies are established and over time the voting areas merge together. This makes maintaining voter lists in urban polling stations more difficult than in rural areas. Another reason is that in rural areas everyone knows everyone. So, the work of BLO becomes easier. In urban areas, we do not have area-specific BLOs who work in that particular locality.

But have some people been quarantined because they were not present at their homes or were travelling?

This may have happened, but not in sufficient numbers. Because if someone is travelling, at least someone from the family will be there, so apart from the voter, any adult member of the household can sign the enumeration form. Also, the enumeration phase in Uttar Pradesh was not for one month but for two months, so we had plenty of time for people to return home and fill the forms.

So, out of the 2.89 crore names that went in the draft list, how many are we expecting to come back in the final list?

What I can tell you is that from October 27, 2025, when the SIR was announced in Uttar Pradesh, till March 6, 2026, the last date of the claims and objections period, we have received about 86 lakh Form 6 submissions. This includes new voters as well as those voters whose names were removed due to various reasons.

What is your opinion on the proposal of new single voter list for general and local body elections? Will this make your work easier?

In some states like UP, the State Act states that the State Election Commission will prepare its own voter list. But in some other states, they take the voter list of assembly constituencies and then divide it according to their wards. Therefore, a few months ago the Election Commission had a conference with the state election commissioners and these issues were discussed.

Then, as far as the qualification of the voter is concerned, there is a difference in this also. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, if a person owns a residence in a particular area, is 18 years of age or older, and is a citizen of India, he or she is eligible to be enrolled in the voter list for local body elections in that area. But for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, merely owning a residence is not enough; You should also stay at that place normally. This eligibility condition varies from state to state as per their respective statutes. Therefore, the first step should be to have a common eligibility criteria, as is being used for the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, and then it can be implemented.

Sobhana K. Nair: What are the things that you think the Election Commission could have done better, especially considering that the BLOs were under pressure, mainly regarding training?

I think we were given a lot of time before the SIR started and we conducted training sessions. I think every District Election Officer was given a full day’s training on the voter list. All 403 EROs were also given training throughout the day. Similarly, they were asked to train their Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) and BLOs. The only thing that was new during the SIR was the enumeration form and two columns where the person had to write the name, which was present in the voter list when the last SIR was conducted. From that point of view, I think our training could have been better, in the sense that there should not have been any doubt in the minds of the BLOs about filling that form. I also believe that there should be sufficient time from the announcement of SIR to the commencement of the calculation phase. In UP we also struggled to find the final SIR voter list.

Vijeta Singh: Have you been able to identify illegal immigrants because that was one of the mandates of this exercise?

So, the first thing I would like to clarify is that finding illegal immigrants is not the purpose of the SIR exercise. The objective is that all eligible persons are in the voter list and persons who are not eligible should not be in the voter list. Over 2.88 crore names were removed during the counting phase. So, if a person doesn’t sign the enumeration form, we don’t know if it’s because the person is not there, the person is not eligible, or the person is an illegal immigrant. Due to the design of the SIR process and the provisions of the Citizenship Act, through this exercise, we have full confidence that the people who have now appeared in the voter list are citizens of India.

Devesh K. Pandey: States like UP have a large number of migrant workers, where are they eligible to register to vote?

Actually, the rule is that anyone can become a voter of the place where he ordinarily resides. So, for example, if a person from UP has a permanent job in Mumbai, he is eligible to vote in Mumbai and not in the village where he comes from. People who go for employment should vote at their place of residence only.

Shobhana: How do you define a usual resident? One of the previous manuals stated that we could not give any concrete definition, and therefore, we leave it to ERO. So, aren’t we leaving a lot of decision-making power in the hands of the lower bureaucracy? And do we need a concrete definition?

There is no definition of ordinary residence yet. Earlier it used to be about one year, then there was some amendment and the period of stay for a certain period was removed. This question has come up in many decisions of the Supreme Court and now the settled position is that the place of ordinary residence is where you go back after work. For example, if you are working in Delhi and go back to your village in Baghpat, that is your place of residence.

Sandeep Phukan: Supreme Court said that in case of Bihar, Aadhaar card should be accepted as an additional document, but in Uttar Pradesh it is not being accepted. Why was it so? For most poor people, Aadhaar is the easiest document to prove their identity and place of residence.

In the case of Uttar Pradesh, like Bihar, Aadhaar was one of the documents given in the list of documents by the Election Commission. But there were some warnings in the Election Commission’s letter of a particular date and also in the Supreme Court order, which had to be followed. It says Aadhaar should be taken as proof of identity, but not as proof of address or as proof of date of birth or place of birth.

AM Jigish: Earlier, it used to be the practice that the state, in this case the constitutional authority, which is the Election Commission, ensured that every citizen above 18 years of age got a chance to vote. Now it depends on the voter. Are we moving toward a kind of American system where voters have to go and register?

From the beginning, it was always the voter who had to take the first step; Unless someone fills Form 6, his name cannot be in the voter list. This was the system earlier also, this is the system even now. The only difference is that earlier it was enough for a person to merely declare that “I am a citizen of India”. But now, the design of the SIR mandates that one has to show some connection through a parent or grandparent to be a citizen of India.

Jacob Koshy: The primary objective of cleansing voter lists and carrying out this exercise from time to time is to ensure that people vote at the places where they are supposed to vote. But with the kind of technological innovations we have now, do you think such practices will still be necessary after 10 years?

Yes, I think with the technology that is coming, we can ensure that we do not have SIR to clean the voter list.

Anuj Kumar: What about Form 7? Do you think this has become a tool of coordinated voter suppression in some areas? What was your experience with it?

In short my answer is no. What Form 7 does is that it gives us a starting point for enquiries. So, you can file 100 Form 7s, but if a person is eligible, there is no way that name will be removed. In the case of UP, there were many complaints by political parties that there were bulk forms, but the number of Form 7 that we took on board was not much. My estimate is around 2-3 lakhs. There are a very small number of people whose name has been struck off due to filing of Form 7 by someone else. We will give the figures on April 10.