Editorial-25/08/2026
Invisible actors: On bulk applications, voter name deletion
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is facing intense scrutiny over allegations that bulk applications under Form 7 are being misused to seek large-scale deletion of voters’ names during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in several states. Critics argue that this process, if not rigorously monitored, risks disenfranchising legitimate voters—particularly from marginalized communities—and undermines the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.
The Form 7 mechanism and its intended purpose
Form 7 is a statutory provision under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, that allows any registered elector to object to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll or to request deletion of an existing entry. Valid grounds include death of the voter, permanent migration, duplication of entries, or ineligibility (e.g., non-citizenship or disqualification).
The form requires the objector to provide their own Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number, mobile number, and a declaration that the information is true. Crucially, the ECI’s guidelines place the “onus of proof” on the applicant to substantiate the reason for objection or deletion.
To prevent abuse, the ECI’s 2023 manual on electoral rolls defined a “bulk application” as one submitted by a person on behalf of several others who are not from the same family. It allowed political parties’ Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to file up to 10 Form 7s per day (maximum 30 during the entire claims-and-objections window), with mandatory personal cross-verification by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) if this cap was exceeded.
Emergence of bulk filing patterns
In 2025–26, during SIR exercises in states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal, unusual patterns emerged: individual objectors—often identified as BJP workers—filed hundreds or even thousands of Form 7 applications. In Uttarakhand alone, 262 individuals each filed more than 10 objections, collectively lodging several thousand deletion requests.
Congress leaders alleged that many of these applications were filed without the knowledge or consent of the persons named as objectors, suggesting a coordinated effort to target specific voter demographics. Senior advocates representing Congress MP Pawan Kumar Punia told the Supreme Court that there was “documented evidence” of “bulk, fraudulent and targeted deletion attempts against eligible electors, particularly of those belonging to minority and marginalised sections of society.”
Regulatory gaps and procedural vulnerabilities
A key vulnerability arose when, in January 2025, a letter to the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer removed the cap on the number of Form 7s an individual could file, retaining only the caveat that more than five forms from a single objector would trigger a mandatory ERO review. This relaxation, initially intended for one state, appears to have set a precedent that was informally adopted elsewhere.
While the ECI stated that submissions exceeding five objections would prompt mandatory review, critics argue that in practice, many EROs lack the resources or political independence to conduct thorough verification. Moreover, the absence of a standardized operating procedure nationwide means that verification practices vary widely across states and districts.
Another procedural gap is the lack of a requirement to notify the voter whose name is sought to be deleted before an ERO adjudicates the objection. This denies the affected elector an opportunity to present counter-evidence or clarify discrepancies, violating principles of natural justice.
Scale of deletions and appellate bottlenecks
The SIR process has resulted in millions of voters being marked for deletion. In Telangana, 48.3 lakh voters (14.2% of the electorate) were flagged for potential removal. In West Bengal, around 27 lakh names were struck off, but only about 7 lakh (26%) appealed to the statutory appellate tribunals.
The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the slow disposal of appeals in West Bengal, where nearly 34 lakh cases remain pending. While the Court urged tribunals to expedite hearings, it declined to impose a specific deadline, citing the upcoming Assembly polls as a reason for urgency.
Political and constitutional implications
The controversy has sparked a broader debate about the balance between electoral purity and inclusive enfranchisement. On one hand, cleaning up electoral rolls to remove duplicates, deceased persons, and ineligible voters is a legitimate and necessary exercise. On the other, the scale and pattern of deletions—especially when concentrated in specific constituencies or demographic groups—raise alarms about potential voter suppression.
UN Special Rapporteurs have written to the Union government seeking information on measures to eliminate “discriminatory treatment of minorities, including Muslims,” in the SIR process. The government acknowledged the letter only after a three-month delay, fueling suspicions of opacity.
Opposition parties, including the Shiv Sena (UBT), have described the revision process as a “corruption scheme” and called for collective resistance against alleged manipulation. They allege that while legitimate voters are being deleted, duplicate or fraudulent entries favorable to the ruling party remain untouched.
Recommendations for reform
To safeguard electoral integrity and protect voting rights, several reforms are urgently needed:
- Standardized national operating procedure: The ECI must issue a uniform SOP requiring verification of the objector’s identity, constituency enrollment, and locus standi before processing Form 7 applications.
- Mandatory notice and hearing: No voter’s name should be deleted without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, in line with principles of natural justice.
- Cap on individual filings: Reinstating a reasonable cap (e.g., 5–10 forms per individual during the claims-and-objections window) would deter bulk misuse while preserving the right to object.
- Transparency and audit: The ECI should publish constituency-wise data on Form 7 filings, including objector details (with privacy safeguards), grounds cited, and disposal outcomes. Independent audits of high-volume constituencies would enhance accountability.
- Strengthening appellate mechanisms: Appellate tribunals must be adequately staffed and mandated to dispose of appeals within a fixed timeframe (e.g., 30–45 days) to prevent prolonged disenfranchisement.
- Penalties for false declarations: Stringent action under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, should be taken against individuals filing frivolous or fraudulent objections.
The road ahead
The SIR exercise is a critical test of India’s electoral institutions. While the ECI has historically enjoyed high credibility, recent controversies threaten to erode public trust. The Commission must act decisively to close procedural loopholes, ensure due process, and demonstrate that no voter—especially from vulnerable communities—will be silently erased from the rolls by “invisible actors” operating in the shadows.
As the Supreme Court continues to monitor the situation, the onus is on the ECI and state election machinery to balance efficiency with fairness, ensuring that the world’s largest democracy remains truly inclusive.
Download Pdf
