Electoral Rolls, Election Commission and Evidence-Based Public Discourse: Facts, Allegations and Law

Electoral Rolls, Election Commission and Evidence-Based Public Discourse: Facts, Allegations and Law

Questions relating to the functioning of the Election Commission should be examined on the touchstone of the Constitution, law, rules, official records, judicial decisions and available evidence. Questions are being raised regarding electoral rolls, Election Commissioners, voter details and technology. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly understand and distinguish facts, allegations, legal position and available evidence.

Fact: Accuracy of Electoral Rolls

The accuracy of the electoral roll itself is a statutory requirement. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 contains provisions relating to registration of voters, ordinary residence, registration at more than one place, and correction and deletion of erroneous or ineligible entries. Section 19 provides the basis for registration. The law prohibits registration of one person in more than one constituency or more than once in the same constituency. Under Section 22, proper verification is required before modification, transfer or deletion of an entry. Therefore, removal of ineligible, deceased or duplicate entries is part of the statutory framework. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure that the name of an eligible voter is not wrongly deleted.

Allegation or Claim: Possible Misuse of Software

The issue of possible misuse of software is raised in public discourse. The fact is that the Election Commission uses technology in the management of electoral rolls and election administration. Systems such as ERONET are used in electoral roll management. But this is different from the more serious claim that any software was deliberately designed or operated in favour of any political party or interest. The available material does not establish this allegation as an established fact. Specific technical or documentary evidence would be necessary for such an allegation. Therefore, questioning the transparency and auditability of technology and declaring the software to be politically biased are two different matters.

Fact and Legal Position: Appointment of Election Commissioners

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court had prescribed, until Parliament made a law, a selection arrangement involving the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. According to Section 7 thereof, the Selection Committee consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. This is a statutory fact. On the contrary, to say that this change has certainly weakened the independence of the Election Commission is a separate constitutional claim. It should be assessed on the basis of law, institutional structure, safeguards and judicial examination.

Fact and Legal Position: Protection of Election Commissioners

Section 16 of the 2023 Act provides statutory protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, in respect of certain acts, words or actions done during the discharge of their official functions, from specified civil or criminal proceedings. It is more accurate to describe this as statutory protection rather than direct immunity conferred by the Constitution. The existence of protection is a fact, while its validity and scope are separate legal questions. Article 324(5) provides special protection to the Chief Election Commissioner, while in respect of other Election Commissioners, the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner is significant.

Allegation or Claim: Exclusion on the Basis of Names and Spelling

There appears to be an administrative difficulty in matching spellings. The Election Commission’s SIR 2026 search portal mentions that spellings of names in old and current voter records may differ. Voters have been advised to search through alternative spellings, and examples such as “Maneesh” and “Manish” have been given. A search facility is also available on the basis of names and other details. This indicates the difficulty of spelling and transliteration in matching records. But the assertion that these differences were deliberately used to exclude eligible voters is a separate allegation. Independent evidence would be necessary for such cases. A difference in spelling alone is not proof of deliberate exclusion.

Fact: Migration and Ordinary Residence

Section 20(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 clearly provides that mere temporary absence from the place of ordinary residence does not make a person cease to be an ordinary resident. Therefore, a person living outside for employment, education or livelihood cannot be excluded from the electoral roll merely because he or she is not present at the original place. The Election Commission has provided facilities for registration, correction, change of residence, objection to deletion and verification of names in the electoral roll. Thus, the existence of a corrective mechanism is an established fact.

Allegation or Claim: Question of Elderly Voters and Documentary Inconsistencies

A possibility of difficulty for voters may be expressed on account of differences in documentary details. It is appropriate to examine the practical difficulties faced by citizens having documentary inconsistencies. But the claim that elderly voters are being systematically excluded merely because of documentary proof relating to age cannot, on the basis of the available material, be stated as an established fact. The possibility of administrative difficulty and the allegation of systematic exclusion must be kept separate.

Fact: Supreme Court Judgment on Bihar SIR

The Supreme Court’s judgment dated 27 May 2026 concerning the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026, is an important reference in this discourse. The Court considered issues relating to the accuracy of electoral rolls, including migration, non-recording of information regarding deaths and duplicate entries. The accuracy of electoral rolls is a real administrative and constitutional issue. But judicial consideration of a problem does not mean that every allegation made against the Election Commission automatically stands proved.

In paragraph 55, the Court stated that the SIR neither conflicts with the Representation of the People Act and the 1960 Rules nor departs from the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections. The Court regarded the SIR as a process arising from the statutory and constitutional jurisdiction obtained by reading Section 21(3) of the R.P. Act with Article 324 of the Constitution. This judicial conclusion relates to the legal basis of the SIR; it does not automatically establish separate allegations such as political misuse of software or the illegality of every deleted name.

Conclusion: Facts, Allegations and Evidence

Revision of the electoral roll is not illegal in itself; the law permits it. The real question is how the process is implemented with law, verification and an opportunity for correction. Every allegation relating to the Election Commission should be examined with reference to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, applicable rules and regulations, directions of the Election Commission and the actual process concerned.

Criticism of constitutional institutions is necessary, but it is equally necessary to maintain a distinction between criticism and allegation. Presenting a fact as an allegation and an allegation as a proved fact may mislead public discourse. Therefore, the law and rules should first be examined, then the procedure should be understood, thereafter the actual facts and available evidence should be verified, and only then should a conclusion be drawn. This is the requirement of evidence-based constitutional discourse.

Surya Pratap Singh Rajawat, Advocate
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur