For months, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has been defended in part as a national security measure. Union Home Minister Amit Shah described the government's approach in October 2025 as "Detect, Delete and Deport." In Parliament in December 2025, he argued that infiltrators must not be allowed to influence who becomes Prime Minister or Chief Minister. Data now emerging from the states shows how much of the exercise's outcome can actually be measured.
A Hindustan Times investigation published on October 29, 2026, found that six states had identified roughly 1,600 suspected foreign nationals in an electorate of about 9.86 crore. Karnataka reported 716, of whom 545 were reportedly Nepalese citizens in Bengaluru North. Kerala reported around 500, Goa 419, Jharkhand three and Meghalaya two. Mizoram reported none. The six figures add up to approximately 1,640. The total is approximate because Kerala's number was given only as "around 500."
These figures need careful reading. They are identifications of suspected foreign nationals for removal, not judicial findings that each person was an illegal immigrant. The deletion of a name from a roll does not by itself establish foreign nationality. The six states are also a small and self-selected group: they are the ones that supplied figures, and they cannot be taken to represent the country.
The larger finding concerns the data itself. The newspaper contacted the Chief Electoral Officers' offices in 26 states and Union Territories where the SIR had been completed or draft rolls published. Officials from 11 responded, and only six provided figures. Punjab, Delhi, Uttarakhand and Telangana said they did not maintain such data. Odisha officials reportedly acknowledged finding suspected foreign nationals but said they had kept no count.
A senior Election Commission of India (ECI) official told the paper that states had not been asked to collect this information separately and that the Commission had no consolidated or state-wise figures. Any such cases, the official said, fell under the broader "Others" category in the ASDDO classification. In practice, then, neither the ECI nor the government can currently give a national count of suspected foreign nationals identified through the SIR.
This is separate from the scale of deletions. The SIR has removed roughly 13 crore names across the country at different stages, but these include voters who have died, permanently moved, been registered more than once or could not be verified under the prescribed process. Shah himself has attributed a large share of deletions to deceased, shifted and duplicate voters, while separately alleging the presence of foreign infiltrators. The two numbers measure different things, and the deletions cannot be read as a count of infiltrators.
The findings do not show that foreign nationals were absent from the rolls, and they do not support claims that large numbers were present. They show that the available evidence is thin and that the official machinery was not set up to record the outcome that political leaders emphasized. Because the ECI did not ask states to track the category separately, the government's central justification for the exercise is difficult to test against results.
There is also a practical concern. Revisions of this kind determine who can vote, and public rhetoric linking electoral rolls to infiltration can place ordinary citizens, particularly migrants, poorer residents and people with documentation problems, under suspicion. Removing ineligible entries is legitimate and necessary, but critics argue that it requires transparent procedures, reliable record-keeping and a real chance for affected voters to contest errors.
Several questions remain open. It is unclear why the ECI did not direct all states to keep a separate, verifiable record of suspected foreign nationals if detection was a stated goal. It is also unclear how many of the roughly 1,600 reported cases have been verified, and how many have led to confirmed removals on grounds of foreign nationality. Finally, the government has not publicly pointed to independent evidence for its claims of large-scale infiltration. This analysis does not include a response from the Home Ministry or the Election Commission, and any reply to these questions would add to the picture.
---
Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media
Comments