30
States and Union Territories across which draft-roll figures for SIR have been reported (Indian Express, via UNI). The evidence differs from state to state, and we have not found one consistent, state-wise count of notices, deletions, corrections and appeals.
Accurate Electoral Rolls, Fair Process: Correcting SIR Errors Across India
The Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) covers electoral-roll exercises across multiple states and Union Territories. Aarunya supports accurate electoral rolls, but accuracy must be achieved through reliable records, transparent verification, fair hearings and effective correction mechanisms.
Our concern is national: when historical records are digitised, voters are mapped against older rolls, discrepancies are flagged and names are added or removed, the process must protect eligible citizens and allow genuine mistakes to be corrected.
The available evidence shows different kinds of concerns in different places. West Bengal has reported historical-roll conversion errors and a substantial appeals backlog. Delhi has faced questions about the criteria and handling of discrepancy notices. In Goa, 97 electors reportedly found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers were left off the final roll because of a software limitation.
These cases do not prove that every state experienced the same failures, nor do they establish a nationwide count of eligible voters wrongly excluded. They show why the Election Commission must publish consistent, verifiable, state-wise information.
Aarunya is not demanding blanket cancellation of SIR. We are demanding correction of documented errors, transparent criteria, accessible remedies, independent scrutiny where warranted, and accountability from the authorities responsible.
13 crore+
names reported struck off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories (Indian Express, via UNI). A draft-roll figure — not a count of final deletions, and not a count of wrongly excluded voters.
source33.13 lakh
Delhi electors marked for notices: about 19.33 lakh for 'logical discrepancy' and 13.79 lakh 'unmapped' (Delhi Chief Electoral Officer data, September 2026). Notices, not deletions.
source97
Goa electors found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers but left off the final roll because ECINET had no rollback function. By 2 October 2026, 88 had filed Form 6 and been accepted.
source37.05 lakh
West Bengal SIR appeals pending, of 38.31 lakh filed (Election Commission affidavit, 16 September 2026). Includes appeals against inclusion, so not a count of voters waiting to be restored.
sourceJantar Mantar, Delhi — Aarunya's protest
Our position
Accurate electoral rolls, no wrongful exclusion of eligible voters, and transparent correction of every documented error.
Why this is a national issue — and where Delhi fits
SIR is not one state's exercise. It began in Bihar in June 2025, was extended to 12 States and Union Territories from October 2025, and a third phase covering 19 States and Union Territories, including Delhi and Maharashtra, was announced in May 2026. The evidence differs from place to place: West Bengal's record is about historical-roll conversion and a very large appeals backlog, Delhi's is about discrepancy notices and a Court asking what 'logical discrepancy' means, Goa's is a single software gap that kept 97 cleared electors off the roll, and Uttar Pradesh's is an allegation under dispute. That is why this issue is national in scope and state-wise in evidence: a problem found in one state is a reason to check the same step in every state, not proof that the same thing happened everywhere. Delhi is where Aarunya held its protest at Jantar Mantar — the video is on this page — and where the Supreme Court has been asking the Election Commission to explain its notices; it is one place where the national problem is visible, not the whole of it.
State-wise evidence at a glance
| State | What the record shows | What it does not show |
|---|---|---|
| Bihar | First state to be revised (ordered 24 June 2025). The Supreme Court directed publication of deleted names (14 August 2025). The Election Commission's final report (30 September 2025) gave 3.66 lakh deleted after verification and 21.53 lakh added. | Commentators say the published figures do not reconcile. Aarunya has not audited them. |
| West Bengal | An internal letter (29 December 2025) acknowledged sporadic errors converting the 2002 rolls into CSV files. By 16 September 2026, 38.31 lakh appeals had been filed and 37.05 lakh were pending. Judicial officers found about 27.16 lakh of roughly 60 lakh adjudicated cases not eligible. | Pending appeals include appeals against inclusion, so the total is not a count of wrongly excluded voters. The adjudication result shows that not every exclusion was wrongful. |
| Delhi | About 33.13 lakh electors were marked for notices (19.33 lakh 'logical discrepancy', 13.79 lakh 'unmapped'), and about 47.5 lakh were left off the draft roll published on 31 August. The Supreme Court asked the Commission to clarify on 22 September. By 9 October, 17.03 lakh notice cases had been verified on documents. | A notice is not a deletion, and a draft-roll exclusion is not a final deletion. 'Verified' is not an outcome count. |
| Goa | 97 electors found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers were left off the final roll because ECINET had no rollback function. By 2 October, 88 had filed Form 6 and been accepted. | Nothing has been reported on the remaining nine. |
| Uttar Pradesh | The Reporters' Collective alleges that 85,854 of 87,127 deletion requests by Electoral Registration Officers had no recorded reason and were software-generated. The state's Chief Electoral Officer rejects this. | An allegation and its rebuttal. Aarunya makes no finding. |
| National | The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's authority to conduct SIR on 27 May 2026. More than 13 crore names were reported struck off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories. | A draft-roll figure is not a count of final deletions or of wrongly excluded voters. We have not read the judgment itself. |
Every figure is attributed in Facts & sources, with its own verification status. Notices, draft exclusions, appeals and deletions are different things and are not added together here.
Why this matters
Why Aarunya is protesting
Aarunya's stand
We support accurate electoral rolls, and we support legitimate verification under the law. We do not accept that an eligible citizen should lose a vote because of an uncorrected technical, administrative or procedural error. Our stand is not to cancel SIR. It is to have its documented errors corrected, its criteria published, its remedies made accessible and its numbers reported honestly — and to hold each institution to account for the part of the process it controls.
What SIR is
The Special Intensive Revision is an electoral-roll revision exercise run by the Election Commission of India under its constitutional and statutory responsibilities. Its stated purpose is to improve the accuracy of the rolls by identifying and addressing entries that may be outdated, duplicated, associated with deceased electors or otherwise in need of verification, while making sure eligible citizens are correctly included. It differs from routine summary revision because it can involve extensive enumeration, historical-record mapping and verification. The framework includes Article 324 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, decided on 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's authority to conduct SIR while addressing safeguards and directions for the process. Aarunya recognises that maintaining accurate rolls is legitimate. Our concern is whether the way it is carried out consistently protects eligible electors and lets errors be found and corrected.
Old records are a documented weak point
Revising a roll can mean matching today's records with older ones. Old documents contain spelling variations, incomplete information, inconsistent transliterations and conversion errors. The Reporters' Collective reported that the Chief Electoral Officer's office in West Bengal acknowledged, in a communication dated 29 December 2025, sporadic errors in converting the state's 2002 electoral rolls into CSV files. This matters because a technical mismatch in historical data can generate a discrepancy that someone then has to examine. A mismatch does not by itself show that a person is ineligible to vote. Where old records and digital results conflict, the original evidence should be examined, genuine errors corrected and the correction recorded. Citizens should not carry the whole burden of fixing mistakes introduced in data processing.
A discrepancy flag is not proof of ineligibility
SIR reporting refers to electors who are 'unmapped' and to electors with a 'logical discrepancy'. Such labels can mark cases that need checking. But a citizen needs to know what each label means, which criterion was applied, and what evidence would resolve it. On 22 September 2026 the Supreme Court questioned the apparent mechanical issuance of notices in Delhi and sought clarity on how 'logical discrepancy' is applied. Those were judicial observations and a request for further information — not a final finding that the notices were unlawful.
Large numbers of notices need procedures people can actually use
According to Delhi Chief Electoral Officer data reported in September 2026, about 33.13 lakh electors were marked for notices: around 19.33 lakh for 'logical discrepancy' and 13.79 lakh as 'unmapped'. These are notices and discrepancy cases — not final deletions, and not a count of eligible voters wrongly excluded. A process that reaches this many people still needs enough administrative capacity, clear instructions, accessible help and a working way to correct mistakes. A notice should give its reason in terms a person can understand, say how to respond, and state the deadline. Help desks, local assistance, accessible hearings and complaint mechanisms have to work in practice, not only in announcements.
When the officer decides but the software cannot record it
In Goa, Electoral Registration Officers found 97 electors eligible. They still stayed off the final roll, because the ECINET system had no rollback function to record the decisions. By 2 October 2026 the Goa Chief Electoral Officer reported that 88 of the 97 had filed Form 6 applications and been accepted. The lesson is simple: an authorised officer's decision has to be something the system can record and carry out. A digital platform should support lawful decision-making, not stand in the way of correcting an error. When a limitation like this appears it should be escalated and fixed, and the citizens affected told plainly how it will be resolved.
An appeal that takes years is not a remedy
According to an Election Commission affidavit dated 16 September 2026, West Bengal had 38,31,429 SIR-related appeals filed, of which 37,05,235 were pending. The figures include appeals against exclusion and appeals against inclusion, so the pending total must not be read as a count of eligible voters waiting to be restored. Even so, the scale of the backlog raises a serious question: can the appeal system resolve disputes quickly enough to give meaningful relief? We ask for regular, tribunal-wise and state-wise disposal figures, enough capacity for the volume of cases, and assurance that appeal outcomes are recorded and reflected in the rolls.
The public needs numbers counted by category
Public debate gets confused when notices, discrepancy flags, draft-roll exclusions and final deletions are treated as if they meant the same thing. Reporting refers to more than 13 crore names struck off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, and a separate political presentation of deletion categories. Each such figure must be attributed to its source and its exact definition kept. A draft-roll exclusion is not automatically a final deletion. A notice is not a deletion. An unresolved discrepancy is not proof of ineligibility. We ask the Election Commission to publish dated, state-wise figures that separately show: electors flagged for verification; notices issued; hearings or document verifications completed; corrections made; names omitted from draft rolls; final deletions; restorations and additions; and appeals filed, decided and pending. The categories should be defined, should reconcile with the published rolls, and should protect personal information.
Technology and administrative instructions must be transparent
Digital systems can help run a very large exercise, but they are only as good as the source data, the rules, the testing and the ability to fix mistakes. Concerns have also been reported about how deletion requests were generated in Uttar Pradesh, and about objections allegedly raised by Election Commissioners over parts of the process. The authorities concerned dispute those claims, and they need to be examined against the underlying records. Aarunya does not claim that artificial intelligence was used in SIR, that a particular technology provider caused a particular deletion, or that a political party directed an irregularity. The evidence we have reviewed does not establish any of those things. We ask that the procedures and criteria be published, that material technical risks be independently reviewed, that documented system failures be explained and corrective actions disclosed — and that disputed allegations be investigated on the evidence rather than treated as proven.
What the legal and judicial record shows
Our position has to match the legal record, so here is what it shows and what it does not. 27 May 2026 — the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct SIR and issued directions on safeguards. The judgment itself should be read before its exact scope is quoted. 22 September 2026 — the Supreme Court questioned the apparent mechanical issuance of Delhi notices and sought clarification and a status report. This was not a final judgment declaring any notice unlawful. 26 September 2026 — the Election Commission announced measures including help from Booth Level Officers, online-hearing arrangements, help desks and an ECINET review involving an independent technical expert. 5 October 2026 — the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions concerning 14 Election Commission decisions. The matter was still pending when this issue was prepared. These developments support the case for transparency and continued scrutiny. They do not support saying that the Supreme Court has declared SIR illegal, or that every discrepancy is a wrongful disenfranchisement.
Who is responsible
Accountability should follow actual authority and evidence. The Election Commission of India is responsible for overall supervision and for the procedures, standards and systems. It should explain the discrepancy categories, ensure reliable correction mechanisms, commission suitable reviews and publish meaningful aggregate data. Chief Electoral Officers and District Election Officers run the process in each state and district: assistance arrangements, monitoring, coordination and reporting of problems. Electoral Registration Officers take the statutory decision on individual cases. Their decisions should be reasoned, properly recorded and capable of being carried out. Where a system limitation or technical defect is documented, the responsible technical teams should investigate it, fix it and leave a traceable record of the fix. Responsibility for a particular vendor or contractor should be assigned only where evidence supports it. Courts and other oversight bodies examine disputes, interpret the safeguards and provide remedies within their own legal powers. We are not making personal accusations. We are asking for a clear account of which process failed, which institution was responsible, what was corrected, and how it will be prevented from happening again.
What we support — and what we do not claim
Aarunya supports accurate electoral rolls; legitimate verification under the law; protection of every eligible voter; clear and understandable procedures; independent scrutiny of documented technical problems; accessible correction and appeal mechanisms; and public reporting and institutional accountability. Aarunya does not claim that every deletion during SIR is wrongful; that every notice proves an elector has been excluded; that every discrepancy flag is an error; that the Supreme Court has declared SIR unlawful; that artificial intelligence was used, without verified evidence; or that any political party or technology provider caused a specific irregularity, without supporting evidence. We will keep facts, allegations, official responses and unresolved questions apart. Accountability is strongest when the evidence is precise.
Questions the Election Commission should answer
1. What exact criteria produce each category of SIR discrepancy flag? 2. How are errors in converting and transliterating historical rolls found and corrected? 3. What happens when an authorised officer's decision conflicts with a status the system generated? 4. What technical review has been done, and which findings and corrective actions will be published? 5. How many notices, draft exclusions, final deletions, corrections and restorations are there in each state, using clearly defined categories? 6. How many appeals are pending, how many have been decided, and what extra capacity is there to clear the backlog? 7. How will the public know whether the announced safeguards have actually been put in place, and whether they work? 8. What independent mechanism can examine a documented failure that is still unresolved after the normal correction process? We want clear, documented answers — not speculation.
How Aarunya will measure progress
We will judge progress by evidence, not announcements. We will look for: published and understandable discrepancy criteria; accessible notices and correction procedures; documented resolution of verified technical problems; evidence that authorised decisions can be recorded and carried out; state-wise figures that keep the different roll outcomes apart; smaller unresolved backlogs and open reporting of delays; and publicly documented corrective actions and answers to the questions above. Where reliable data does not exist, we will say so. We will not invent a rate of wrongful exclusion, and we will not treat a notice count as a count of eligible voters who lost their vote.
Closing statement
Revising the rolls is a legitimate and important responsibility. But its success cannot be measured only by how many records were processed or removed. It also has to be measured by the accuracy of the underlying data, the fairness of the procedure, the ability of citizens to correct errors, the effectiveness of appeals, and the willingness of institutions to explain their decisions. Correct the errors. Protect eligible voters. Explain the decisions. Publish the evidence. Hold the responsible institutions accountable. Our aim is not to abandon accurate electoral rolls. It is to make sure that accuracy is reached through a process that is fair, transparent and able to correct its own mistakes.
Reading the numbers by category
West Bengal SIR appeals, from the Election Commission's affidavit of 16 September 2026: 38,31,429 filed, 1,26,194 decided, 37,05,235 pending. The pending total includes appeals against inclusion as well as exclusion.
- Decided
- Pending
See the figures
| Lakh | |
|---|---|
| Decided | 1.26 lakh |
| Pending | 37.05 lakh |
Delhi: why the notices were issued
Delhi electors marked for notices by category, from Delhi Chief Electoral Officer data reported in September 2026. Together about 33.13 lakh. These are notices — not deletions.
- Logical discrepancy
- Unmapped
See the figures
| Lakh | |
|---|---|
| Logical discrepancy | 19.33 lakh |
| Unmapped | 13.79 lakh |
What is not known
We do not know how many eligible voters have been wrongly removed anywhere in India. Nobody has published that number, and a notice count, a draft-roll figure or a pending-appeals total is not it. We do not know what happened to the remaining nine of Goa's 97, whether the Uttar Pradesh allegation is right, or what the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May says beyond what has been reported — we have not read it. We have not found the full discrepancy criteria published. Where we do not know, we say so.
What we are asking for
- 1DEMAND 1 · Correct documented errors. Set up a traceable process for correcting verified errors in the digitisation and mapping of historical rolls, in spellings and in similar mistakes. Citizens should not carry the whole burden of fixing errors introduced by data processing. Responsible: the Election Commission and the relevant electoral-roll authorities. Done when: counts of corrections received, resolved and pending are published, with clear definitions.
- 2DEMAND 2 · Publish the discrepancy criteria. Explain 'unmapped' and 'logical discrepancy' in plain language, with the criteria applied and the way each category is resolved. Responsible: the Election Commission, with state-level publication by Chief Electoral Officers. Done when: the criteria are public and every notice states the specific reason for that case.
- 3DEMAND 3 · Fair notices and hearings. Give clear instructions, a reasonable opportunity to respond, accessible ways to submit documents, and appropriate help under the applicable rules. Responsible: Electoral Registration Officers, District Election Officers, Chief Electoral Officers and the Election Commission. Done when: information on notice handling, assistance given, hearings completed and cases awaiting decision is published.
- 4DEMAND 4 · Make authorised decisions implementable. Make sure system limitations cannot block the recording of corrections, restorations or other authorised decisions. Responsible: the Election Commission's administrative and technical divisions. Done when: a documented correction mechanism and audit trail exist, and material system failures and their resolution are reported publicly.
- 5DEMAND 5 · Publish an independent technical review. Review the material risks in historical-data conversion, discrepancy identification, matching and correction, and publish the findings and corrective actions to the extent compatible with privacy and legitimate security needs. Responsible: the Election Commission. Done when: a review summary names the findings, the responsible teams, the corrective actions and their implementation status.
- 6DEMAND 6 · A state-wise public dashboard. Keep flags, notices, draft exclusions, final deletions, corrections, restorations, appeals and pending cases separate. Responsible: the Election Commission and Chief Electoral Officers. Done when: regularly updated data with definitions and dates is published and can be reconciled against the published rolls.
- 7DEMAND 7 · Improve appeal capacity. Publish tribunal-wise disposal data and give pending cases enough administrative capacity. Responsible: the relevant judicial and election authorities, each within its own powers. Done when: appeals received, decided and pending are reported regularly, with a transparent explanation of delays.
- 8DEMAND 8 · Investigate the disputed deletion-request records. Examine the reported Uttar Pradesh Form 7 concerns, obtain the underlying records and publish a clear response. This is an allegation we ask to be answered, not a finding. Responsible: the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh. Done when: the disputed entries are reconciled and the applicable procedures explained.
- 9DEMAND 9 · Publish corrective-action reports. For each material problem that is acknowledged or established, state the cause, the authority responsible, the corrective measure and the outcome. Responsible: the institution responsible for the process concerned. Done when: a public record shows what has been corrected and what remains unresolved.
Facts & sources
Every number here is checkable
We link the source for each claim and record the date we last verified it. If you find something wrong, tell us and we will correct it in public.
On 22 September 2026 a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on a petition about Delhi SIR notices. Justice Bagchi said the notices appeared to be going out 'almost mechanically'; the Chief Justice said 'logical discrepancy' needed clarification. The Court sought a status report and asked authorities to follow its earlier interim directions on publishing excluded names with reasons. The Election Commission's counsel said reasons are stated in the notices and that no voter would be deleted without a hearing. This was an interim hearing, not a finding.
LiveLaw, 22 September 2026 · media report · verified 2026-10-13
Verified
Delhi Chief Electoral Officer data released on 19 September 2026 showed 13,79,785 electors 'unmapped' and 19,33,134 flagged for 'logical discrepancies' — together about 33.13 lakh electors marked for notices. These are notices, not deletions.
Business Today, 20 September 2026 · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt, not the full article. The figures are the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's, as reported.
On 26 September 2026 the Election Commission announced that Booth Level Officers would visit the homes of electors issued notices as 'unmapped' or with a 'logical discrepancy' to collect documents; that hearings would be exceptional and preferably online; that District Election Officers would set up help desks and camps for night-shelter residents, labourers, the poor and the homeless; that Delhi's claims-and-objections period would run to 30 October and disposal to 30 November 2026; and that a committee including an independent IIT/IIIT expert would review ECINET.
Election Commission press note, 26 September 2026 (copy of the PDF) · government document
Primary source not located
This is a copy of the press note hosted by a third party; the Election Commission's own page could not be loaded. Check the official copy before relying on its exact wording.
The Chief Electoral Officer's office in West Bengal acknowledged, in an internal communication dated 29 December 2025, 'sporadic errors in conversion of the 2002 electoral rolls into CSV'. The Reporters' Collective, which reports the communication, also reports that 2002 records were converted before being matched with the present rolls.
The Reporters' Collective, 29 January 2026 · media report · verified 2026-10-13
Verified
The letter is quoted as the Reporters' Collective reproduces it; we have not seen the original.
Electoral Registration Officers in Goa found 97 electors eligible, but they were left off the final roll because ECINET had no rollback function to record the decisions. The Goa Chief Electoral Officer said on 2 October 2026 that 88 of the 97 had filed Form 6 applications and been accepted.
PTI via ThePrint, 2 October 2026 · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt, not the full article. What happened to the remaining nine has not been reported in the material we reviewed.
The Election Commission told the Supreme Court in an affidavit dated 16 September 2026 that 38,31,429 appeals had been filed before West Bengal's SIR appellate tribunals — 22,21,118 by excluded voters and 16,10,311 challenging inclusion — of which 1,26,194 had been decided and 37,05,235 were pending.
LiveLaw, September 2026 · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt, not the full article. The pending total includes appeals against inclusion.
On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct SIR while addressing safeguards and directions concerning the process.
The Hindu, 27 May 2026 · media report
Provisional
The link was taken from a citation and the page itself was not opened. The text of the judgment has not been consulted; read it before relying on its exact scope.
The Indian Express reported that more than 13 crore names were struck off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories. This is a draft-roll figure — not a count of final deletions, and not a count of wrongly excluded voters.
UNI, 23 September 2026, reporting the Indian Express · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt. The Indian Express original could not be opened.
Reuters reported that the BJP, citing Election Commission data, says 130 million names were deleted — 28 million dead, 63 million relocated, 10 million duplicates and 30 million 'could not be traced' — and that opposition parties allege the removals benefited the BJP. These are the parties' own presentations; the Election Commission rejects the allegation of manipulation. Aarunya adopts neither side's claim.
Reuters, republished by New Straits Times · media report
Provisional
The Reuters original could not be opened; this is read through a republication. A 'could not be traced' entry is not proof that a person is ineligible.
The Reporters' Collective alleges that 85,854 of 87,127 deletion requests filed by Uttar Pradesh Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant EROs carried no recorded reason and were generated by software. The Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer rejects this. We report both and make no finding.
National Herald, summarising the Reporters' Collective, 9 October 2026 · media report
Unresolved
An allegation and its rebuttal, not an established fact. The underlying records and the Chief Electoral Officer's own statement have not been checked.
The Indian Express reported that two of the three Election Commissioners objected at least 14 times in 10 months on aspects of the SIR process. The Election Commission says every decision was taken unanimously and that the notes were suggestions.
UNI, 23 September 2026 · media report
Unresolved
A reported allegation and the Commission's rebuttal; Aarunya takes no position on it.
On 5 October 2026 the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions challenging 14 Election Commission decisions on SIR and asked for authenticated records first. The matter was pending.
Morung Express, October 2026 · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt. Check the latest status of the proceedings before relying on this.
SIR began in Bihar (ordered 24 June 2025). A second phase covering 12 States and Union Territories was announced on 27 October 2025, and a third phase covering 19 States and Union Territories, including Delhi and Maharashtra, was announced on 14 May 2026.
Wikipedia, 'Special Intensive Revision' (secondary summary); News On AIR on Phase III · media report
Provisional
Taken from a secondary summary and a news excerpt. The Election Commission's own orders were not retrieved; check them before relying on exact dates.
On 14 August 2025 the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to publish details of deleted names in Bihar.
Supreme Court Observer · media report
Provisional
The link was seen but the page was not opened.
The Election Commission's final Bihar report (30 September 2025) gave 3.66 lakh names deleted after verification and 21.53 lakh added. Commentators, including The Wire and Sabrang India, report that the published figures do not reconcile. Aarunya has not audited them.
Sabrang India; The Wire · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt. The Election Commission's own report was not retrieved.
Judicial officers adjudicating West Bengal's disputed SIR cases found about 27.16 lakh of roughly 60 lakh cases not eligible (reported 6 April 2026). This is the only adjudication outcome we have found reported.
The Wire · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt; the article was not opened. It is included because it shows that not every exclusion was wrongful.
About 47.5 lakh electors were left off Delhi's draft roll published on 31 August 2026. This is a draft-roll figure, not a count of final deletions.
National Herald · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt. Reports give about 47.5 to 47.7 lakh.
By 9 October 2026, 17,03,515 of about 33 lakh Delhi notice cases (about 51%) had been verified on documents. Verified is not the same as retained or deleted, and the outcome of those cases has not been reported in the material we reviewed.
ThePrint, October 2026 · media report
Provisional
Read as a search excerpt, not the full article.
Questions
Why is this about the whole of India and not only Delhi?+
Because SIR is a national exercise. It began in Bihar, reached 12 States and Union Territories in its second phase and 19 in its third, and the evidence differs by place: West Bengal's is historical-roll conversion and appeals, Delhi's is discrepancy notices, Goa's is a software gap, Uttar Pradesh's is a disputed allegation. A problem found in one state is a reason to check the same step in every state — not proof that it happened everywhere.
Why did Aarunya protest at Jantar Mantar?+
Because we believe the concerns in this issue — published criteria, recordable decisions, accessible remedies and honest state-wise numbers — should be put to the Election Commission openly. The video on this page is our own recording of the protest. It is Aarunya's account, not an independent report.
Do you want SIR cancelled?+
No. Accurate rolls matter and the Supreme Court has upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the exercise. We want documented errors corrected, and the process made explainable and measurable.
Is a notice the same as a deletion?+
No. A notice asks an elector to show eligibility. In Delhi about 33.13 lakh electors were marked for notices, and the Court was told no voter would be deleted without a hearing. A draft-roll exclusion, a notice and a final deletion are three different things.
Did the Supreme Court say the notices were unlawful?+
No. On 22 September 2026 one judge said the notices appeared to be going out almost mechanically, and the bench asked the Election Commission to clarify and report. That was an interim exchange, not a finding.
Did the software cause wrongful deletions?+
We know of two documented problems: errors in converting the 2002 West Bengal rolls, acknowledged in an official internal letter, and the Goa rollback gap, acknowledged in the Election Commission's response. We do not know how many eligible voters were wrongly removed overall, and nobody has published that number.
Was artificial intelligence used?+
West Bengal's Chief Minister has alleged it. We have found no verified source, so we do not claim it.
Are you saying a political party manipulated the rolls?+
No. We make no claim of that kind. The Election Commission rejects the allegation and the questions are before the courts and the public. Our demands apply whichever party an accurate and fair process happens to favour.
What about the Election Commissioners' reported objections?+
The Indian Express reported that two commissioners objected at least 14 times in 10 months; the Election Commission says every decision was unanimous. The Supreme Court issued notice on 5 October 2026 and wants authenticated records. We will wait for that process.
What should I do if I receive a notice, or think my entry is wrong?+
Check your details on the official voter-services portal (voters.eci.gov.in) or your state Chief Electoral Officer's website. Read the notice carefully and follow its instructions and deadlines. Contact your Booth Level Officer or the Electoral Registration Officer if anything is unclear. Keep copies of every document you submit and keep the acknowledgement. Use the official claims, correction and appeal procedures, and ask the competent election authority for help if you meet a technical or administrative obstacle. For Delhi, the Election Commission has set 30 October 2026 as the last date for claims and objections and 30 November 2026 for disposal. Please confirm the latest official instructions before relying on those dates.
Do your demands set deadlines for the Election Commission?+
No. Any timeframe we suggest is Aarunya's recommendation, not a claim about a legal deadline. Existing official deadlines, such as Delhi's, are the Election Commission's own and should be followed as published and updated by the competent authority.
Will you publish individual voters' details?+
No. We will not publish individual voter records unnecessarily. If we collect evidence of systemic problems, we will do it only with consent and with privacy safeguards.
Where this stands
The whole process, in public
We publish each step as it happens — including the steps where nothing happens.
SIR ordered for Bihar
24 June 2025The first state to be revised.
Source: Wikipedia (secondary; the Commission's order was not retrieved)
Supreme Court directs publication of deleted names in Bihar
14 August 2025A first transparency direction from the Court.
Source: Supreme Court Observer
Bihar final report
30 September 20253.66 lakh deleted after verification and 21.53 lakh added, as reported. Commentators say the published figures do not reconcile.
Source: Sabrang India
Second phase announced for 12 States and Union Territories
27 October 2025SIR extends beyond Bihar.
Source: Wikipedia (secondary)
West Bengal: internal letter acknowledges conversion errors
29 December 2025The Chief Electoral Officer's office acknowledges 'sporadic errors' in converting the 2002 rolls into CSV files, as reported by the Reporters' Collective.
Source: The Reporters' Collective
Third phase announced for 19 States and Union Territories
14 May 2026Delhi, Maharashtra and others are covered.
Source: News On AIR
Supreme Court upholds the Election Commission's SIR authority
27 May 2026Judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, with directions on safeguards.
Source: The Hindu
Delhi draft roll published
31 August 2026About 47.5 lakh electors left off the draft roll. A draft-roll figure, not a count of final deletions.
Source: National Herald
West Bengal appeals figures filed
16 September 2026Election Commission affidavit: 38.31 lakh appeals filed, 37.05 lakh pending.
Source: LiveLaw
Supreme Court questions Delhi's notices
22 September 2026The bench says the notices appear almost mechanical, asks the Commission to clarify 'logical discrepancy' and to report on the steps taken. An interim exchange, not a finding.
Source: LiveLaw
Election Commission announces support measures
26 September 2026Booth Level Officer home visits, online hearings, help desks, extended Delhi deadlines and an ECINET review with an independent technical expert.
Goa: 88 of the 97 re-enrolled
2 October 2026The Goa Chief Electoral Officer says 88 of the 97 cleared electors have filed Form 6 and been accepted.
Source: PTI via ThePrint
Aarunya begins protests in Delhi
From 3 October 2026Aarunya Swaraj Party's protests in Delhi over the SIR process. The videos under Updates are Aarunya's own recordings and account; no independent report is cited here.
Source: Aarunya's own account
Supreme Court issues notice on 14 Election Commission decisions
5 October 2026The Court asks for authenticated records first. The matter is pending.
Source: Morung Express
Delhi: claims and objections close
30 October 2026An existing Election Commission deadline. Confirm the latest official date before relying on it.
Delhi: notices and claims to be disposed
30 November 2026An existing Election Commission deadline. Confirm the latest official date before relying on it.
Aarunya follows up
OngoingWe will publish any Election Commission response to these demands, and record the silence if there is none.
More from Jantar Mantar, Delhi
Aarunya's own recording from its YouTube channel. It is Aarunya's account, not an independent report.
Who is behind this
Aarunya Issues is an initiative of Aarunya Swaraj Party, being built by students who believe that public problems deserve evidence, accountability and action.
Read the founder's noteStay connected
We are building this in public. Watch it happen.
Every issue, every representation, every response — posted as it happens. Follow Aarunya Swaraj Party and be part of the record.