‘Pehle Vote Gaya, Phir Jhuggi Gayi’: SIR Hearing Lays Bare Voters’ Ordeal in Delhi

Public Hearing Highlights Voters’ Concerns Over SIR

A public hearing in New Delhi has highlighted the difficulties faced by residents whose names were reportedly missing from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.

The hearing, held on Thursday, October 15, was organised by an independent commission comprising former judges A. K. Patnaik, Rekha Sharma and Anjana Prakash. Witnesses from Delhi, West Bengal, Telangana, Bihar and Rajasthan described difficulties with voter registration and alleged that their names had been excluded despite submitting relevant documents.

The testimonies raised questions about how electoral records are verified, how voters are informed about discrepancies and whether the process adequately accounts for the circumstances of people living in informal settlements.

The hearing was not a judicial ruling on the allegations. Instead, it provided a platform for affected residents to present their experiences and seek scrutiny of the electoral-roll revision process. <Cite refs={["turn325175search0","turn325175news19"]}/>

Maya Devi’s Account: ‘First My Vote Disappeared, Then My Home’

One of the most striking accounts came from Maya Devi, a 58-year-old domestic worker from Mayur Vihar Phase-I in Delhi.

Maya said her name and the names of her two daughters were missing from the electoral rolls, even though her husband and son remained listed. She also said her family’s informal dwelling had been demolished, leaving five family members to share a small kitchen-cum-room near Pillar 1 of Mayur Vihar Metro station.

Her account captured the hardship of dealing with the loss of both a home and an electoral entry. She said she had lived in Delhi since she was 13 and had voted in previous elections, including the 2025 Delhi Assembly election.

Maya also alleged that she had contacted her Booth Level Officer (BLO) for help completing the paperwork needed to restore her name to the voter list, but the official did not visit her.

Her experience raised concerns about whether residents facing documentation or housing difficulties receive adequate assistance during electoral verification. The circumstances of her family’s voter-list omission and the demolition of the dwelling would need to be examined separately by the relevant authorities. <Cite refs={["turn325175search0","turn325175search9"]}/>

Former MP Questions Removal From Voter List

Former West Bengal Lok Sabha MP Tarun Mondal also testified at the hearing, saying his name had been removed from the electoral roll despite his family completing the required enrolment process.

Mondal said he had approached several authorities over the issue, including the Prime Minister and the President. He questioned how he could have served as a Member of Parliament if his voter status was now being challenged.

His testimony highlighted the consequences that electoral-roll errors can have for citizens who believe they have established their eligibility through years of participation in elections.

The hearing brought together accounts from people with different backgrounds, including a former parliamentarian and residents of informal settlements. Their cases underscored the importance of clear explanations for deletions and accessible procedures for correcting errors.

Teacher Says Hundreds of Enrolment Forms Were Submitted

Another witness, identified as Kamal, a teacher from Bela Estate, said he had been voting since 2002 and that his name had appeared on the electoral rolls the previous year.

Kamal said residents had submitted more than 500 enrolment forms connected with their now-demolished settlement, yet questions remained about their status. He argued that families with long-standing roots in the area were being treated as encroachers despite their attempts to complete the registration process.

His account highlighted the challenges that can arise when electoral verification intersects with disputes over housing, settlement status and official documentation.

However, voter registration and land or housing status are separate administrative and legal matters. The accounts presented at the hearing call for examination of the individual records and the reasons given for any deletions or eligibility notices.

Concerns Over ‘Logical Discrepancies’ in Voter Verification

The hearing also examined the use of so-called “logical discrepancies” to flag voter records for further verification. These reportedly included inconsistencies involving the number of siblings in a family and small age gaps between parents and children.

Presenters from Voter Adhikar Manch and Jan Sarokar raised concerns about how such criteria could affect people whose family histories or documentation do not fit standard assumptions.

Sabir Ahmed, who conducted a citizens’ audit in West Bengal, argued that automated systems used to flag inconsistencies might fail to account for social realities, including early marriage and motherhood.

According to findings presented by Voter Adhikar Manch, Muslim voters were more frequently flagged for certain discrepancies at the notice stage in Delhi and Karnataka. This was a claim presented by the organisation and would require examination of the underlying data to establish its scope and causes.

The concerns underline the importance of ensuring that automated checks are followed by careful human verification and that affected voters have a meaningful opportunity to explain discrepancies. <Cite refs={["turn325175search0","turn325175search3"]}/>

Scale of Voter Deletions in Delhi

Presenters at the hearing outlined the scale of changes to Delhi’s electoral rolls.

According to figures cited at the event, the January 2025 electoral rolls contained more than 1.5 crore voters. Around 11 lakh names were subsequently removed through monthly deletions before the SIR freeze, with most of those deletions reportedly occurring between January and June 2026.

The draft electoral rolls published on August 31 excluded more than 47 lakh additional voters, according to the figures presented at the hearing.

These figures relate to different stages of the electoral-roll process and should not automatically be interpreted as proof that every person whose name was removed was eligible and wrongly excluded. They do, however, underline the importance of transparent records, clear reasons for deletions and effective procedures for filing claims and objections.

Commission Calls for Greater Public Scrutiny

The independent commission argued that individual verification and claims-and-objections procedures may not be sufficient on their own to identify every error in a large electoral database.

It proposed greater community participation, including reading draft electoral rolls aloud at public meetings. Such exercises could allow residents to identify missing names, duplicate entries, incorrect classifications and other discrepancies before the final rolls are published.

Community-level scrutiny could also help people who have limited access to digital services or who face difficulties understanding official notices.

The proposal places emphasis on making electoral verification more accessible while preserving the need for accurate records and established eligibility rules.

Separately, reports on the SIR process said that more than 60% of the 33 lakh people in Delhi who received verification notices had been verified under eased procedures. Booth Level Officers were reportedly conducting home visits and helping to correct minor errors. <Cite refs={["turn325175search1","turn325175search2"]}/>

Conclusion

The SIR hearing in Delhi brought attention to the real-world consequences that electoral-roll discrepancies can have for people from different social and economic backgrounds. Maya Devi’s account of losing her voter-list entry while her family faced the demolition of its dwelling became a particularly stark illustration of the difficulties described by witnesses.

The testimonies do not by themselves establish that every deletion was wrongful, but they raise important questions about transparency, documentation, access to officials and the correction of errors. The commission’s proposal for greater public scrutiny offers one approach to identifying discrepancies before the electoral rolls are finalised.