The last Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters’ list was carried out in 2002–03 with little public attention, much like India’s earlier milestones of becoming a one- or two-trillion-dollar economy, which passed without sustained publicity. It was only when the economy crossed the three-trillion-dollar mark that the event became widely known, following an extensive publicity campaign by the Modi government. In contrast, the 2025–26 SIR is unfolding amid considerable public attention and administrative activity. This government has shown a tendency to foreground processes that were earlier handled more quietly.
The SIR form contains the voter’s existing details, with requirements to provide date of birth, Aadhaar number (not mandatory), names of parents and spouse, and, if available, their Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers. This part of the process is relatively straightforward. The lower half of the form, however, is more consequential. It requires information intended to establish that the voter or their family has been residing in India for the past 23 years, a criterion determined by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to identify genuine voters, though this is not stated explicitly. Failure to provide these details carries the risk of the voter’s name being removed from the electoral rolls.
In this section, applicants must furnish either their own details from the voter list published after the last SIR in 2003, or those of one of their parents or grandparents from that list. While the 2003 voter list has been uploaded on the ECI website, difficulties persist. If a person is unsure of their Assembly Constituency or polling booth from 2003, they may spend hours searching, as the PDFs—at least in Uttar Pradesh—are not machine-searchable and are available only in Hindi. Constituency boundaries and polling booths may also have changed over time, even for those who have remained at the same address. Many voters are confused, unable to recall their booth details despite identifying their constituency with local help. The mobile numbers of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are provided on the SIR form, and many do respond, unless overwhelmed by workload. Higher officials, however, appear more focused on comparative performance metrics than on resolving such difficulties.
Some BLOs have advised voters to fill only the top portion of the form and submit it. Others, particularly in rural areas where voter mobility has been limited, have taken the initiative to fill in the crucial details—Assembly Constituency number, part number, and serial number—from the 2003 list before handing the form to the voter. The status of forms submitted with only the upper half filled remains unclear. If voters later locate their or their ancestors’ 2003 details, BLOs are often unwilling to update the submitted forms, citing lack of mandate, thereby jeopardising the voter’s inclusion in the revised list. There are also reports of BLOs, under pressure to demonstrate progress, filling and submitting forms without voters’ consent. Should such voters not find their names in the initial revised list, they would be required to submit Form 6 as new voters.
Another group of voters faces a different predicament. Their names, or those of their parents or grandparents, appear in the 2003 list, yet they have not received SIR forms because their names are missing from the current electoral rolls. These omissions may be accidental or otherwise. Without receiving the SIR form, they are unable to submit it despite possessing old EPICs and documentary proof from 2003. They too are directed to submit Form 6, even though they are not first-time voters.
A specific case has arisen in Vasant Kunj, Lucknow, where residents allotted houses under the PM Urban EWS housing scheme—after their earlier homes in Akbar Nagar were demolished last year—fall under a different Assembly Constituency. BLOs have reportedly declined to issue SIR forms to these residents, citing instructions from higher authorities. The District Electoral Officer, who is also the District Magistrate, has advised them to apply through Form 6 after the initial list is released. If large numbers of such applicants, many of whom are Muslims, submit Form 6, it is possible that questions will be raised about the addition of “new” Muslim voters, despite the fact that they or their families were voters in 2003. Some residents who successfully submitted SIR forms online have been informed by local BLOs that their applications may be rejected. The prospect of disenfranchisement remains a serious concern.
Public statements made during the SIR process have added to anxieties. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s announcement about setting up detention centres in each district has raised apprehensions, especially as such centres were originally conceived in Assam to address cross-border migration issues. There is no comparable evidence of large-scale infiltration in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. During Bihar’s SIR, the only cases identified involved Nepalese women married to Indian citizens, a common occurrence in border areas and one that poses no legal violation.
More recently, the Lucknow Mayor, Sushma Kharakwal, has launched drives to identify alleged Bangladeshis among sanitation workers. Earlier, Brij Lal, a Rajya Sabha MP and former Director General of Police, publicly questioned sanitation workers about their identities. This raises questions about whether elected representatives have the authority to verify citizenship. In Assam, such matters are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals established under the Foreigners Act. In Lucknow’s Dubagga area, residents of Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) housing have reported police visits demanding occupancy documents and Aadhaar copies, creating fear and uncertainty.
The pursuit of alleged “intruders” appears to align with a broader political narrative that can contribute to social polarisation. The urgency with which SIRs have been conducted—first in Bihar and now simultaneously in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Goa, and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Puducherry, and Lakshadweep—has generated avoidable anxiety among voters and election officials alike.
In Lucknow, public address systems at major intersections urge voters to complete enumeration forms online. However, the online process requires EPIC linkage to a mobile number, and despite Aadhaar being officially optional, an OTP is sent to the mobile number linked with Aadhaar, effectively compelling disclosure of Aadhaar details. Names in English are accepted only if they exactly match existing ECI records, while many lists are in Hindi, and even minor discrepancies between Aadhaar and EPIC spellings lead to rejection. If facilitating online submissions were the genuine objective, such rigid requirements would arguably not exist. Instead, they add layers of complexity, making successful submission uncertain for many.
Overall, the SIR process appears to have been undertaken without adequate preparation and imposed on citizens in a manner that has raised doubts about its intent. Earlier revisions relied on BLOs visiting homes and completing verification respectfully and efficiently. The current approach, marked by pressure, confusion, and administrative overreach, has left many citizens feeling harassed rather than reassured.
---
Arundhati Dhuru is associated with the National Alliance of People’s Movements, and Sandeep Pandey with the Socialist Party (India)
Comments