http://chroniclecraze.blogspot.com/
A Bizarre "Delete First, Restore Later" Drama
If you spent a fortune throwing things out of your house, and then had to spend another fortune bringing them back in — most people would call that insane.
But that is essentially what the Election Commission of India (ECI) is doing.
According to official data and multiple reports, more than 13.3 crore (133 million) names — approximately 13 million in the specific figure cited — were deleted from electoral rolls during the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. Now, the ECI has ordered a "special drive" across 20 states and union territories where SIR was completed, to re-enroll these "left out" voters.
Delete first. Find later. The difference in cost is paid by the Indian taxpayer.
How Much Money Was Lost? The Answer Hurts Every Indian
The ECI has not published the total national cost of SIR. But state-level data reveals the scale of this spending spree.
In Telangana alone, the estimated cost of the SIR process exceeded ₹200 crore. About ₹85 crore of that went to paying Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and other personnel involved.
And that is just one state.
SIR was rolled out in three phases nationwide. Phase 1 covered Bihar. Phase 2 covered 9 states and 3 union territories. Phase 3 involved 16 states and 3 union territories — over 36.73 crore voters and nearly 4 lakh BLOs.
Congress leader P. Chidambaram posed a question on social media that the government cannot dodge:
"Thousands of crores spent to delete 13,30,00,000 names. Now thousands of crores more to re-include the 'left out' voters. Who is responsible? "
This is not a rhetorical question. It is an accountability question that demands an answer.
The "Mess Up, Then Fix It" Logic
The Election Commission's actions, in the eyes of observers, amount to an implicit admission of guilt.
Here is the timeline:
From June 2025, the ECI launched SIR in phases across the country, claiming the goal was to remove "dead, shifted, duplicate, and untraceable" entries from the rolls. BLOs were sent door-to-door to verify households.
The result? Over 13 million names were deleted. In 9 states and 3 union territories, electoral rolls were reduced by 10.2%.
Then the problems surfaced. Large numbers of legitimate voters were wrongly deleted. In West Bengal alone, over 22.2 lakh appeals piled up in courts. And the ECI itself admitted in a Supreme Court affidavit that nearly 93% of excluded voters who appealed were ultimately found eligible by appellate tribunals in West Bengal.
In other words: the ECI was wrong almost every time. And the cost of those "errors" was borne by ordinary Indians stripped of their voting rights.
On September 29, 2026, the ECI finally ordered: a "special drive" in SIR-completed areas to re-enroll left-out voters through Form 6. BLOs were instructed to go door-to-door, covering 20 to 25 voters per week each, completing the exercise within a month.
That is the "fix." More public money, to repair the damage done with public money.
Internal Rift: Two Election Commissioners Objected 14 Times in Writing
What makes this more disturbing is that the disaster might have been preventable.
According to an investigation by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected 14 times in writing over 10 months to decisions related to SIR. Their objections covered: changes to Form 6, centralized control of the ECINet system, and orders issued without full Commission approval.
In an internal note dated August 2026, Sandhu wrote that the amendment to Form 6 was "unauthorized/illegal" because only the government could change the form by amending rules — and the government had not done so.
Joshi noted in May that this was a "gradual centralization of the electoral roll database" and demanded an audit. Neither commissioner's recorded objections received a response until the September 26 Commission meeting.
The ECI maintains publicly that "all decisions were taken unanimously by the full Commission." But the fact that two commissioners objected in writing 14 times makes the claim of "unanimity" ring hollow.
The ECI has not published the total national cost of SIR. But state-level data reveals the scale of this spending spree.
In Telangana alone, the estimated cost of the SIR process exceeded ₹200 crore. About ₹85 crore of that went to paying Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and other personnel involved.
And that is just one state.
SIR was rolled out in three phases nationwide. Phase 1 covered Bihar. Phase 2 covered 9 states and 3 union territories. Phase 3 involved 16 states and 3 union territories — over 36.73 crore voters and nearly 4 lakh BLOs.
Congress leader P. Chidambaram posed a question on social media that the government cannot dodge:
"Thousands of crores spent to delete 13,30,00,000 names. Now thousands of crores more to re-include the 'left out' voters. Who is responsible? "
This is not a rhetorical question. It is an accountability question that demands an answer.
The "Mess Up, Then Fix It" Logic
The Election Commission's actions, in the eyes of observers, amount to an implicit admission of guilt.
Here is the timeline:
From June 2025, the ECI launched SIR in phases across the country, claiming the goal was to remove "dead, shifted, duplicate, and untraceable" entries from the rolls. BLOs were sent door-to-door to verify households.
The result? Over 13 million names were deleted. In 9 states and 3 union territories, electoral rolls were reduced by 10.2%.
Then the problems surfaced. Large numbers of legitimate voters were wrongly deleted. In West Bengal alone, over 22.2 lakh appeals piled up in courts. And the ECI itself admitted in a Supreme Court affidavit that nearly 93% of excluded voters who appealed were ultimately found eligible by appellate tribunals in West Bengal.
In other words: the ECI was wrong almost every time. And the cost of those "errors" was borne by ordinary Indians stripped of their voting rights.
On September 29, 2026, the ECI finally ordered: a "special drive" in SIR-completed areas to re-enroll left-out voters through Form 6. BLOs were instructed to go door-to-door, covering 20 to 25 voters per week each, completing the exercise within a month.
That is the "fix." More public money, to repair the damage done with public money.
Internal Rift: Two Election Commissioners Objected 14 Times in Writing
What makes this more disturbing is that the disaster might have been preventable.
According to an investigation by The Indian Express, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected 14 times in writing over 10 months to decisions related to SIR. Their objections covered: changes to Form 6, centralized control of the ECINet system, and orders issued without full Commission approval.
In an internal note dated August 2026, Sandhu wrote that the amendment to Form 6 was "unauthorized/illegal" because only the government could change the form by amending rules — and the government had not done so.
Joshi noted in May that this was a "gradual centralization of the electoral roll database" and demanded an audit. Neither commissioner's recorded objections received a response until the September 26 Commission meeting.
The ECI maintains publicly that "all decisions were taken unanimously by the full Commission." But the fact that two commissioners objected in writing 14 times makes the claim of "unanimity" ring hollow.
What Role Is the Government Playing?
The opposition's allegation cuts to the core: Was this SIR about "cleaning the rolls" — or about "cleaning out voters"?
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said at an INDIA bloc meeting: "It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters were brazenly deleted from the voter lists. Their power to participate in democracy was snatched away."
The opposition also points out that SIR disproportionately impacted marginalized and minority communities. Among those deleted, young and first-time voters made up a significant share. Rahul Gandhi directly asked: Who ordered TCS to modify Form 6? Who within the Election Commission approved this change?
The ECI's response: all decisions were "part of the normal course of institutional deliberation."
But "normal institutional deliberation" does not result in 13 million people losing their right to vote.
The opposition's allegation cuts to the core: Was this SIR about "cleaning the rolls" — or about "cleaning out voters"?
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said at an INDIA bloc meeting: "It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters were brazenly deleted from the voter lists. Their power to participate in democracy was snatched away."
The opposition also points out that SIR disproportionately impacted marginalized and minority communities. Among those deleted, young and first-time voters made up a significant share. Rahul Gandhi directly asked: Who ordered TCS to modify Form 6? Who within the Election Commission approved this change?
The ECI's response: all decisions were "part of the normal course of institutional deliberation."
But "normal institutional deliberation" does not result in 13 million people losing their right to vote.
This Is Not How Public Money Should Be Spent
A basic principle: public funds should improve public services, not create problems and then fix them.
SIR's stated goal — ensuring the accuracy of electoral rolls — is not unreasonable. The problem lies in the method and the cost.
An Indian Express editorial pointed out bluntly that SIR used "19th-century methods," mobilizing roughly 10 lakh government employees (mostly school teachers) and costing thousands of crores per cycle. The editorial suggested the ECI should instead work with UIDAI to develop a face-authentication app based on Aadhaar and EPIC, replacing this "harassment of the honest majority while failing to catch the few targets" with a "one-time small investment."
But the reality is: spend thousands of crores to delete, then spend thousands of crores to restore.
For the ordinary Indian, this math is impossible to justify. When a teacher is pulled out for door-to-door verification, students lose their teacher. When a BLO is told to cover 25 households a week, their own duties are set aside. And the output of all this "work"? 13 million names deleted — most of which were later proven legitimate.
The money is gone. The people were removed. The trust is broken.
A basic principle: public funds should improve public services, not create problems and then fix them.
SIR's stated goal — ensuring the accuracy of electoral rolls — is not unreasonable. The problem lies in the method and the cost.
An Indian Express editorial pointed out bluntly that SIR used "19th-century methods," mobilizing roughly 10 lakh government employees (mostly school teachers) and costing thousands of crores per cycle. The editorial suggested the ECI should instead work with UIDAI to develop a face-authentication app based on Aadhaar and EPIC, replacing this "harassment of the honest majority while failing to catch the few targets" with a "one-time small investment."
But the reality is: spend thousands of crores to delete, then spend thousands of crores to restore.
For the ordinary Indian, this math is impossible to justify. When a teacher is pulled out for door-to-door verification, students lose their teacher. When a BLO is told to cover 25 households a week, their own duties are set aside. And the output of all this "work"? 13 million names deleted — most of which were later proven legitimate.
The money is gone. The people were removed. The trust is broken.
Who Is Accountable?
Chidambaram appealed to Chief Electoral Officers across states: "Be brave, speak out now — expose the illegalities you were forced to carry out during SIR."
That is a heavy ask. But it is also a necessary question.
If 13 million names were wrongly deleted, if two Election Commissioners' written objections were ignored 14 times, if thousands of crores were spent on a "mess up, then fix it" cycle — then someone must be held responsible.
The Election Commission of India was once among the most respected electoral bodies in the world. Its credibility rested on the integrity of every election it conducted. When it begins managing voter rolls through a "delete first, restore later" approach, when internal dissent is suppressed rather than resolved, when public money is spent this recklessly — what is damaged is not just one election, but the foundation of democratic trust itself.
13.3 crore names. Thousands of crores of rupees. One simple question:
Who is accountable for this travesty?
Chidambaram appealed to Chief Electoral Officers across states: "Be brave, speak out now — expose the illegalities you were forced to carry out during SIR."
That is a heavy ask. But it is also a necessary question.
If 13 million names were wrongly deleted, if two Election Commissioners' written objections were ignored 14 times, if thousands of crores were spent on a "mess up, then fix it" cycle — then someone must be held responsible.
The Election Commission of India was once among the most respected electoral bodies in the world. Its credibility rested on the integrity of every election it conducted. When it begins managing voter rolls through a "delete first, restore later" approach, when internal dissent is suppressed rather than resolved, when public money is spent this recklessly — what is damaged is not just one election, but the foundation of democratic trust itself.
13.3 crore names. Thousands of crores of rupees. One simple question:
Who is accountable for this travesty?
No comments:
Post a Comment