A pair of unforeseen 'natural experiments' in Assam and Uttar Pradesh have delivered what researchers call rigorous, real-world proof that the Election Commission of India's Special Summary Revision (SIR) of voter rolls carries a 'fatal design defect.' The evidence indicates that the controversial process has led to the exclusion of approximately 6.56 crore names across half of India, raising serious concerns about mass disenfranchisement.
The Core of the Controversy: Compulsion and Proof
Analysts Rahul Shastri and Yogendra Yadav, writing in The Indian Express, argue that the problem is not with the intent of an intensive list revision. Instead, the flaw lies in two specific, unprecedented design elements of the SIR: the compulsion of enumeration forms and the requirement for proof of citizenship. These requirements, they contend, shift an unreasonable onus onto the voter, creating a procedural barrier that results in legitimate names being struck off the electoral rolls.
The scale of the issue became starkly visible after the second phase of the SIR was conducted in 12 states and Union Territories. The data confirmed that the disenfranchising effect was not limited to Bihar, where 44 lakh net deletions had earlier caused an uproar. The pattern held true across diverse states, regardless of migration trends or the previous accuracy of their voter lists. A particularly disturbing trend emerged: women have borne the brunt of the SIR-driven exclusions, with the gender ratio in voter lists declining in every state post-revision.
Experiment One: Assam's Divergent Path
The first 'natural experiment' occurred in Assam. Unlike the rest of the country, the Election Commission of India (ECI) junked the SIR methodology for the state's revision. Instead, it opted for a traditional method of house-to-house physical verification. Crucially, there was no requirement for enumeration forms or citizenship proof.
The outcome was telling. Assam began its revision with 2.52 crore voters. After the process, 10.56 lakh names were deleted and 10.55 lakh were added, leaving the final draft list at exactly 2.52 crore—a net change of zero. This stands in stark contrast to other major states, which witnessed deletions ranging from 8% to 19%. The Assam case strongly suggests that removing the two contentious SIR elements prevents disenfranchisement.
Experiment Two: A Freak Parallel in Uttar Pradesh
The second and even more compelling experiment happened by chance in Uttar Pradesh. While the ECI was conducting the SIR for state elections, the State Election Commission (SEC-UP) was simultaneously revising its own voter list for upcoming panchayat elections. The SEC-UP process mapped the same eligible electorate but operated without the SIR's requirements for forms or citizenship documents.
The results revealed a staggering discrepancy. Uttar Pradesh has a projected adult population of 16.1 crore as of December 2025. The SEC-UP's draft list for rural areas alone stood at 12.7 crore. Adding the urban voters from its 2023 list, the total electorate for local body elections reached 16.1 crore—matching the state's adult population. Meanwhile, the ECI's list, post-SIR, showed the state's electorate at just 12.6 crore.
We have two different methods that give us staggeringly different numbers for the UP electorate, the analysis notes. The SIR shows it at 12.6 crore, the non-SIR method shows it at 16.1 crore. The only logical conclusion is that the problem lies specifically with the SIR's design.
Conclusion: A 'Disenfranchising Monster'?
Together, these two unplanned experiments offer powerful comparative evidence. They indicate that the intensive revision of voter lists, in itself, is not the issue. The critical factor leading to the exclusion of millions of names is the compulsory paperwork and citizenship proof mandates unique to the SIR process.
While social scientists may delve deeper into this data, the researchers present a stark conclusion: the current design of the SIR acts as a 'disenfranchising monster let loose on the Indian voters.' The findings call for urgent scrutiny of the methodology to safeguard the fundamental democratic right of universal adult suffrage.
