Let Us Not Be in Denial: Disenfranchisement Is Real

21 Oct 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Electoral System   Key electoral mechanisms

Source: The Indian Express

Context:The Election Commission of India (ECI) has undertaken SIR of electoral rolls to verify voter eligibility and remove ineligible entries. The exercise has triggered debate over whether large-scale deletions have resulted in disenfranchisement, i.e., eligible citizens being denied their right to vote.

• Central Debate: Critics cite the deletion of 13.3 crore names from pre-SIR electoral rolls as evidence of disenfranchisement, while supporters argue that the deletions concern voters classified as Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD). The authors argue that a reliable, large-scale audit is necessary to establish the actual extent of wrongful exclusion.
• Alternative Assessment Method: The authors compare the number of voters on the final SIR electoral rolls with official projections of the adult population eligible to vote, a benchmark also used by the ECI to assess electoral rolls.

Estimated Voter Shortfall in Nine Major States

- Overall Shortfall: The final SIR electoral rolls in nine major states contain 530.6 million voters, against a projected adult population of 601.2 million, indicating a gap of 70.6 million (7.06 crore), or 11.7%.

- State-wise Shortfall:

State	Projected Adult Population (million)	Final Electoral Roll (million)	Shortfall (%)
Gujarat	53.3	44.0	17.4
Uttar Pradesh	161.7	134.0	17.1
Chhattisgarh	21.5	18.7	13.0
Bihar	83.0	74.2	10.6
Madhya Pradesh	60.2	54.0	10.3
Rajasthan	56.6	51.5	9.0
West Bengal	77.0	70.5	8.4
Tamil Nadu	60.2	56.7	5.8
Kerala	27.7	27.0	2.5
Total	601.2	530.6	11.7

• 
  Key Findings: Uttar Pradesh has the largest absolute shortfall of 2.77 crore, followed by Gujarat at 93 lakh. Gujarat has the highest proportionate shortfall (17.4%), while Kerala has the lowest (2.5%).
• Data Limitations: The adult population figures are projections from the Technical Group on Population Projections (July 2020), not actual counts. The authors consider them reasonably reliable, although unexpected COVID-19 mortality may have caused some overestimation.

Estimating the National Scale of Exclusion

• Projected National Shortfall: Based on the average exclusion rate of approximately 12% in the nine states, the authors estimate around 12 crore missing voters nationally.
• Third Phase of SIR: The authors cite higher exclusion rates at the draft-roll stage in the third phase. Citing Rahul Shastri’s estimate, they suggest that the final electoral roll could contain around 87.8 crore voters, compared with an estimated adult population of 101.6 crore.
• Potential National Gap: This comparison implies approximately 13.8 crore missing voters. The estimate does not account for possible corrective action by the ECI.
• Who Are the Missing Voters? The category includes eligible citizens wrongfully removed from pre-SIR electoral rolls as well as eligible adults who should have been added but were not registered. However, a population–electoral-roll gap alone does not establish that every missing person has been wrongfully disenfranchised.

Debate over Voluntary Non-Registration

• Counterargument: Economist Urjit Bhalla acknowledges the gap between the adult population and electoral rolls but argues that the two need not match exactly because some eligible citizens voluntarily remain unregistered.
• Bhalla’s Benchmark: He cites the under-registration of young adults in 2024, estimated at 7.5% of the total adult population, and adds one percentage point for other adults. This produces a benchmark of 8.5% for normal non-registration, with only the excess considered potentially unfair.
• Authors’ Rebuttal: Jean Drèze and Yogendra Yadav argue that voter registration in India is state-initiated, making non-registration a responsibility of electoral administration rather than a shortfall that should automatically be accepted.
• Importance of Registration: They contend that voter ID is an important document for citizens and that voluntary non-registration should not be presumed to be widespread without reliable evidence. They also cite a lower youth enrolment gap of 5.2% in 2014, compared with the 7.5% figure for 2024.
• Uttar Pradesh Example: Even accepting Bhalla’s 8.5% benchmark, the authors estimate that around 1.4 crore voters in Uttar Pradesh alone may have been unfairly excluded. They criticise the use of a higher threshold for Uttar Pradesh based on the fact that 40% of adults aged 18–29 were unregistered in 2024.

Significance for Indian Democracy

• Universal Adult Suffrage: Article 326 of the Constitution provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to constitutional and statutory conditions. Citizens aged 18 years or above who meet the applicable eligibility requirements are entitled to registration.
• Electoral Integrity: Accurate electoral rolls are essential to ensuring that ineligible entries are removed without excluding eligible citizens. Both wrongful inclusion and wrongful exclusion undermine confidence in elections.
• Administrative Accountability: The debate highlights the need for transparent revision procedures, accessible correction mechanisms, reliable population and registration data, and independent audits to distinguish legitimate deletions from wrongful disenfranchisement.

Conclusion: The authors argue that the scale of the estimated shortfall warrants serious scrutiny rather than dismissal. The actual number of wrongfully excluded voters, however, requires verification through reliable audits and individual-level electoral data.