SIR applies a decade of exclusion lessons perfected on welfare schemes

Approximately 1,640 individuals identified as foreign citizens were removed from electoral rolls in six Indian states following a special intensive revision of voter lists. The figures were disclosed by state election officials in response to media inquiries regarding the outcome of the recent electoral exercise. The affected states include Karnataka, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Kerala, Goa, and Mizoram. Following the completion of the revision process, these six states collectively retain approximately 9.86 crore registered electors. The Election Commission initiated the first phase of this specific revision in June 2025, citing the inclusion of names belonging to foreign illegal immigrants as a primary justification for the undertaking. Karnataka recorded the highest number of identified foreign nationals among the reporting states. State election officials stated that 716 individuals were flagged for removal, a group that included 545 Nepalese citizens residing in Bengaluru North. This identification occurred alongside the deletion of more than 99.3 lakh names from Karnataka’s final voter list, which was published on Tuesday. In Kerala, authorities discovered roughly 500 persons holding foreign citizenship who remained on the rolls. More than 8.9 lakh names were subsequently deleted from the state’s final list, released on February 21. Goa reported the presence of 419 foreign passport holders within its voter databases, according to Chief Electoral Officer Sanjay Goel. Over 1.2 lakh names were removed from Goa’s final list, also published on February 21. Jharkhand identified three foreign citizens, all described as originating from Afghanistan. The state’s draft voter list, published on August 5, saw the deletion of more than 43.6 lakh names. The final list for Jharkhand is scheduled for release on November 30. In Meghalaya, two men of Nepalese origin, both married to Indian women, were found on the electoral rolls, per state Chief Electoral Officer BDR Tiwari. More than 1.6 lakh names were deleted from Meghalaya’s final list, issued on October 26. Mizoram reported no instances of foreign citizens on its rolls. Approximately 39,000 names were deleted from the state’s final roll, published on September 7. Other jurisdictions offered varying levels of transparency. Officials from four states indicated they did not maintain separate data on foreign citizens. Odisha acknowledged finding such cases but declined to provide specific numbers. The Election Commission stated it had never instructed states to collect this data independently. A poll body official noted that the central agency lacks combined or state-wise statistics on the matter. Cases involving potential foreign nationals were categorized under the "Others" section of the ASDDO classification, which stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, and Others. The special intensive revision has generated significant controversy. Critics argue the process risks eliminating genuine voters and influencing electoral outcomes. In May, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the revision but clarified that the Election Commission cannot make definitive determinations on Indian citizenship. The court ruled that deleting a voter indicates only the commission’s inability to be satisfied with the evidence, rather than a legal finding of non-citizenship. Despite this ruling, states governed by the Bharatiya Jantra Party have utilized the revision results to deny ration cards to individuals removed from the rolls. In certain instances, police authorities have refused to renew passports for those excluded from the voter lists. The methodology behind the revision builds upon digital tools introduced in the 1990s, including voter identity cards and computerized rolls. Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi noted that previous manual corrections kept rolls approximately 99 percent accurate. Since 2015, the commission has attempted to purify rolls by matching them against Aadhaar biometric records. The current exercise differs by presuming eligibility based on older rolls, requiring younger voters to prove their status through parental links or additional documentation. By September 1, 13.37 crore names were missing from draft rolls due to deaths, absences, or relocations. Legal challenges have tested the boundaries of the exercise. The Association for Democratic Reforms argued in the Supreme Court that the commission’s role is enrollment, not citizenship adjudication. The court permitted a limited inquiry into citizenship but emphasized that ultimate decisions belong to the central government. Political opposition groups, including the Trinamool Congress, Left parties, and the Congress, along with rights organizations, have urged the Election Commission to postpone civic polls until deleted voters are restored to the rolls. They contend the current procedure effectively functions as a citizenship test, threatening fundamental voting rights.