Deletion of nearly 2.89 crore names from Uttar Pradesh’s electoral rolls has ignited a sharp political confrontation, with opposition parties alleging that Muslim-majority districts were hit disproportionately during the Special Intensive Revision exercise, even as election authorities insist the process followed statutory norms.The controversy gathered pace after the Election Commission published draft rolls showing steep declines in several western districts. Saharanpur, which has a sizeable Muslim population, recorded a fall in registered voters estimated between 15 and 19 per cent, according to the draft data. Comparable contractions were noted in neighbouring pockets, prompting questions about whether the clean-up exercise has skewed representation ahead of forthcoming polls.
Opposition leaders contend the scale and geography of the deletions point to selective pruning rather than routine corrections. They argue that voters from marginalised communities, migrant workers and those lacking updated documentation are more vulnerable during house-to-house verification drives, and that safeguards were insufficient. Party spokespeople have demanded the Election Commission disclose ward-level break-ups and the reasons cited for each deletion, and have called for a time-bound grievance redressal mechanism before the rolls are finalised.
Election officials have pushed back, saying the Special Intensive Revision is mandated periodically to ensure rolls reflect eligible residents and remove duplicates, deceased voters and those who have relocated. Officials say enumerators followed established protocols, including notices at addresses and opportunities for objections and claims, and that draft rolls are published precisely to allow corrections. They have urged political parties and citizens to file claims within the stipulated window rather than politicise an administrative exercise.
Data from the draft rolls show that the largest net reductions are concentrated in districts with high rates of seasonal migration and urban churn, factors the Commission says complicate enumeration. Civil servants familiar with the process note that deletions often spike where households are locked during visits or where names appear multiple times across polling parts. They add that Aadhaar-based de-duplication is not used for voter registration, limiting automated cross-checks and placing greater weight on field verification.
Still, the optics of double-digit percentage declines in select districts have sharpened scrutiny. Electoral scholars caution that even procedurally sound revisions can produce uneven impacts if outreach is weak. They point to past exercises where short verification windows and language barriers led to under-representation, particularly among first-time voters and minorities. The remedy, they argue, lies in transparent disclosures, extended claim periods and proactive assistance through camps and helplines.
Within the state’s political arena, the issue has widened fault lines. Opposition parties have raised the matter with the Commission in New Delhi and are considering legal options if clarifications are not forthcoming. Ruling party leaders have accused rivals of stoking fear, arguing that similar revisions occur nationwide and that the draft status of the rolls is being overlooked. They have urged voters to check their names online and submit claims where needed.
Ground reports from Saharanpur describe confusion among residents who discovered their names missing despite having voted in previous elections. Local activists say awareness of the claims process remains patchy in semi-urban wards and villages, and that digital access is uneven. Election officials say special camps have been scheduled at polling stations to assist voters, and that booth-level officers are tasked with helping applicants restore names upon proof of eligibility.