The deletion of nearly 27 lakh names from the list of eligible voters for the first phase of the West Bengal Assembly elections, scheduled on April 23, has come as a rude shock not only to the affected citizens but also to independent observers who seek nothing more than a free and fair election. With the electoral rolls now frozen without these deleted names, those affected stand effectively disenfranchised – at least for the forthcoming polls. With such a large number of exclusions, the election may well be free; but will it pass the test of fairness?


The lofty ideal that even if a hundred culprits go scot-free, not one innocent should be punished forms the backbone of any fair and modern judicial system. By the same logic, a fundamental criterion of a free and fair election in a civilised democracy is that not a single eligible citizen is deprived of the right to vote.


It may well be that ninety per cent of the 27 lakh deleted names belong to those who are genuinely ineligible – being deceased, having migrated, or having fraudulently secured enrolment. Yet, even by that conservative estimate, nearly three lakh bona fide citizens would have been unjustly, and perhaps inadvertently, excluded from the electoral process.
The tribunals set up under the instructions of the Supreme Court may, at some future date, restore the rights of these unfortunate but genuine voters. However, it remains an open question whether such subsequent relief can fully compensate for their inability to participate in the immediate electoral process.


In hindsight, the entire process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) appears to have faced significant challenges from the outset. There can be no dispute that a clean and reliable electoral roll is the first prerequisite of a free and fair election, and it is the constitutional duty of the Election Commission of India to ensure this. However, in a country with over 96 crore registered voters, revision of electoral rolls must be a continuous and carefully calibrated process. Only then can a reasonably dependable list be maintained when elections are due.


Periodic intensive revisions are undoubtedly necessary to preserve the sanctity of the rolls. But such an exercise, given its sheer magnitude, demands adequate time and preparation. A compressed process conducted over a few months, just ahead of an election, may not be sufficient for a task of this scale.


What the public witnessed during the SIR in Bihar, and subsequently in West Bengal, has raised concerns about the practical difficulties involved in managing such large-scale exercises, and about the need for robust institutional coordination to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to exercise their franchise.


A key concern with the SIR has been its approach. Instead of focusing primarily on the inclusion of all eligible voters – thereby naturally excluding the ineligible – it appears to have placed considerable emphasis on identifying and removing names deemed ineligible. In practice, this may have had the effect of shifting the burden onto individuals to establish their eligibility.


In other words, the process at times gave the impression that inclusion in the electoral roll required reaffirmation, rather than being presumed on the basis of prior verification. Such an approach, while perhaps administratively driven, can inadvertently cast doubt on earlier processes through which electoral rolls were prepared and revised over decades. In a democratic system, it is important that citizens are not placed in a position where they feel compelled to repeatedly prove their bona fides.


Equally perplexing was the apparent reluctance to accept certain widely used identity documents as sufficient proof of voter eligibility. The Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC), issued by the Election Commission itself, and the Aadhaar number – accepted across multiple domains as proof of identity and existence – did not always appear to carry decisive weight in the verification process.


This is particularly noteworthy given the general understanding that Aadhaar, with its unique identification framework, offers a high degree of reliability. While the physical card may be susceptible to misuse, the underlying number is designed to be secure and verifiable. It was only after judicial guidance that greater clarity appears to have emerged on this aspect.
The experience of the SIR in Bihar had provided an opportunity for institutional learning. It is possible that further refinements in procedure, drawing upon that experience, might have helped streamline the process in West Bengal and reduce the scope for confusion or hardship.


At the same time, the process in West Bengal appears to have been affected by limited coordination between different stakeholders. In a politically charged environment, differing positions and responses may have contributed to delays and complications, making the exercise more difficult to carry out smoothly.


As is often the case in such large public processes, the matter also became the subject of multiple legal challenges. The resulting litigation added another layer of complexity. In these circumstances, the intervention of the Supreme Court, including the involvement of judicial officers in scrutinising the revised rolls, was aimed at strengthening the credibility and fairness of the process.


Reports from the field, however, suggested that the implementation of these measures was not always free from disruption. There were instances where officials faced difficulties in carrying out their assigned responsibilities, highlighting the challenges of executing such an exercise on the ground. Ensuring that administrative and judicial processes function without impediment remains crucial in such contexts.


As the judicial process continues, the central concern remains: what recourse is available to genuine voters whose names have been struck off through no fault of their own? Even if tribunals eventually restore their voting rights, it is likely that many of them may not be able to participate in the present election.


It is noteworthy that the Election Commission, in undertaking such an onerous but critical task, has encountered significant difficulties in producing a fully accurate and universally accepted electoral roll. As observed by former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, such challenges are unusual in the long history of the institution. Even judicial oversight, within the constraints of time, has had limited scope to fully resolve all issues before the election schedule.


Whatever the reasons, the burden of this situation cannot rest on citizens who may have been inadvertently excluded. The question, therefore, is why they should bear the consequences of systemic or procedural limitations.


In a democracy, accountability is essential – not in a punitive sense, but as a means of strengthening institutions and restoring public confidence. It is important that concerns are acknowledged and addressed, so that every citizen can feel assured that their fundamental right to vote is both protected and respected.