Democracy Dies in the Darkness of Dubious Lists

Voter lists suffer from errors of commission and omission. Political parties and voters must scrutinise list revisions. But the biggest responsibility lies with the Election Commission

- SANDEEP SHASTRI

Controversies regarding the authenticity of electoral rolls have arisen with regular frequency—both after the declaration of results as well as during the process of updating the rolls. Errors of both omission (when names that should have been on the list are excluded) and commission (when names that shouldn't have been on the list are included) have been highlighted.

The Quality of Voter List studies conducted by the non-profit Janaagraha more than a decade and a half ago had pointed out errors of as much as 20 percent on many urban electoral rolls and close to 10 percent in several rural ones.

Such controversies surfaced once again after last year's assembly elections in Maharashtra. The opposition alleged that a large number of names had been added to the voters' list in select constituencies.

More recently, in West Bengal, allegations of duplicate election photo identity cards (EPIC) being issued were raised by the ruling party. The Election Commission promised a probe, especially in the light of its mandate to ensure that every EPIC is issued under a unique number.

In Tamil Nadu, too, there were complaints by voters at the time of the latest roll revision that names of family members who were no longer residing in their hometowns had been included.

Amid these controversies, there has been a renewed focus on the role of the Election Commission itself. In January 2025, when allegations emerged about the manipulation of electoral rolls in Delhi before the elections, the then Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar assured that the process of maintaining the electoral roll was transparent and due process was rigorously followed while deleting from or adding to voter lists, leaving no room for any manipulation.