Archive · 23 Sep 2026
Voter Questions Burden of Proof in India’s SIR Revision
Surjit Bhalla tried to complete a form for India’s voter-list review.
He says he has voted for about 30 years and that his name and address have not changed.
Officials checked his papers but later said his application was incomplete.
They did not explain what was missing, so he had to wait in another long line.
Bhalla agrees that voter lists should remove people who have died, moved, or been counted twice.
But he says the government should prove that someone is ineligible before removing that person.
He believes the current process makes every voter prove they still belong on the list.
He also says this may hurt people who cannot afford repeated trips, long waits, or help with paperwork.
Surjit Bhalla says his SIR application remained marked incomplete despite decades of voting and unchanged personal details.
Election officials reviewed his documents, found no error, and later required another lengthy in-person review without explaining the deficiency.
Bhalla supports cleaning electoral rolls but argues genuine voters should not have to prove they remain eligible.
He says the current SIR design presumes voters absent unless they submit new forms, reversing the earlier approach of verifying existing rolls.
More than 13 crore names were removed from draft rolls nationwide, but the number of wrongly deleted genuine voters remains unknown.
- Who
- Surjit Bhalla, Election Commission of India officials, and voters undergoing the Special Intensive Revision.
- What
- Bhalla describes difficulties completing his SIR application and criticizes the process for placing the burden of proof on voters.
- When
- During the current Special Intensive Revision; the article also compares it with the previous intensive revision in 2002.
- Where
- New Delhi, with the article also discussing draft-roll deletions across India.
- Why
- The SIR is intended to clean electoral rolls by identifying voters who have died, moved, or been listed more than once.
Case for the SIR’s stated purpose
Case against its current design
Cleaning electoral rolls
Case for the SIR’s stated purpose
A voter list containing dead, departed, or duplicate entries can diminish confidence in elections, so reviewing and correcting it is necessary.
Case against its current design
Bhalla agrees that rolls should be cleaned but says the process can also wrongly remove genuine voters, with disenfranchisement being the more serious error.
Burden of proof
Case for the SIR’s stated purpose
The current process requires voters to submit enumeration forms and supporting documents to confirm their continued eligibility.
Case against its current design
Bhalla argues that existing voters should remain on the roll unless the state proves they have moved, died, or been counted twice.
Measuring errors
Case for the SIR’s stated purpose
The Election Commission of India has cited zero appeals in 12 states as evidence that the process worked, according to the article.
Case against its current design
Bhalla says zero appeals may show that appealing is difficult, not that no genuine voters were wrongly removed.
- Applicant
- Surjit Bhalla
- Voting history
- Bhalla says he has voted in national and state elections for three decades.
- Application issue
- His application was described as incomplete, but neither he nor the Booth Level Officer was told what was missing.
- Review process
- After an initial document check, applicants were called to a second review outside a school in New Delhi.
- Scale of deletions
- More than 13 crore names were removed from draft rolls across India, according to the article.
- Earlier revision
- The article says the 2002 revision began with existing rolls and verified changes through house-to-house visits.
- Supreme Court description
- The Supreme Court called notices sent to Delhi voters “mechanical” and “machine-generated.”