Delhi’s special intensive revision (SIR) hearings have turned voter-list verification into a test of the city’s documentation systems, public administration and ability to serve residents who live with incomplete or inconsistent records. At hearing centres across the capital, people who have voted in earlier elections are being asked to establish their eligibility through prescribed documents, often while losing daily wages, travelling between offices and navigating procedures they do not fully understand.
The scale of the exercise makes the experience at individual hearing centres more than an administrative inconvenience. Of the 1.45 crore people on Delhi’s electoral rolls on June 16, 2026, 97.5 lakh remained on the draft rolls, while around 47.6 lakh were marked Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate. More than one-third of those remaining on the draft rolls face notices. Their cases are to be disposed of by October 29, with the final roll scheduled for publication on November 4.
The numbers describe a major administrative operation. The experiences recorded at centres in Chandni Chowk, Rajouri Garden and other parts of Delhi show its urban consequences: queues, travel between hearings and homes, dependence on photocopy shops and Internet cafés, lost wages, limited access to officials and uncertainty over which documents will be accepted. The process places the burden of resolving gaps in government records on residents, including elderly people, daily-wage workers, tenants, migrants and families whose documents contain small inconsistencies.
The SIR exercise was rolled out in 2025 before the Bihar Assembly election. Its stated purpose was to clean electoral rolls by identifying duplicate entries, people who had died or moved, and illegal migrants. It has since covered 30 States and Union Territories. The report says more than 13 crore people on voter lists were removed at the draft stage across the exercise, making the question of how exclusions are reviewed central to the credibility and accessibility of the process.
In Delhi, the verification challenge is particularly visible among residents whose lives do not fit neatly into official records. Sanichari Devi, a 63-year-old daily-wage worker in a JJ cluster in Pul Mithai, arrived at a Chandni Chowk hearing centre with her Aadhaar number, PAN card, voter ID and ration card. She said she was asked to return home for a bank passbook and then to travel again for photocopies. After spending nearly two hours trying to understand the requirements, she fainted in the afternoon heat. The day’s lost earnings amounted to ₹400-500, according to the report.
The prescribed evidence is not limited to a single identity document. Under the Election Commission of India’s Standard Operating Procedure for the SIR, Aadhaar alone is not sufficient. The report refers to 11 accepted documents, including educational certificates. Yet the presence of a document does not guarantee that it will resolve a case. Yashoda Devi, 36, said her Class 12 certificate was not accepted because it did not mention her date of birth. Her Class 10 certificate had been destroyed in a fire at her parents’ house in Varanasi, and she said she had no passport or property in her name.
This reveals a distinction between possessing documents and possessing documents that are interoperable. A resident may have a voter ID, school certificate, ration card or other official record, but a mismatch in spelling, age, address or parentage can prevent the records from being connected. In the case of Rahul, whose name was changed for privacy, the reported discrepancy was the spelling of his father’s name: “Mahavir” on one record and “Mahaveer” on another. He was asked to correct the record and appeal for another hearing.
The problem is amplified by the historical depth of the information being sought. More than 13.79 lakh people in Delhi were served notices after being marked “unmapped”, meaning that their names or those of relatives were not found on older SIR rolls from 2002. Another 19.33 lakh were flagged for “logical discrepancies”, including name mismatches and age-related anomalies. For families who have moved across States, lost documents, changed addresses or lived in informal settlements, reconstructing a paper trail from 2002 can be difficult even when they have lived and voted in Delhi for decades.
Ram Chandar, a housekeeping worker who has lived in Delhi for 37 years, said all members of his family received notices because they could not provide details of themselves or a relative from the 2002 rolls. He said he had voted during the tenures of Sheila Dikshit and Arvind Kejriwal and in the last election, but his earlier voter ID did not establish his identification at the hearing. His account also points to the cost of attendance: his mother and sister-in-law were away in their village and could not appear at the centre.
The process is therefore not only about document availability. It depends on whether citizens can take time off work, reach a hearing centre, understand a notice, arrange a photocopy, obtain a correction and return for another hearing. At one centre, people with early time slots reportedly waited until the evening because cases could not be processed within the scheduled period. An official said that around 300 people could be scheduled in a day, while the desk could process only 120 to 130 cases because of limited time.
At the Chandni Chowk centre described in the report, 7,000 notices had been generated for an area comprising 50 booths. The Assistant Electoral Registration Officer attending to queries said officials were accepting documents ranging from a Class 5 marksheet to a hospital discharge card, even when applicants did not have the prescribed documents. At the same time, he said at least 50 people were turned away every day after failing to produce a valid document. The gap between formal rules and local discretion becomes significant in such circumstances: applicants may be told that additional material will be considered, but they cannot be certain that it will resolve their case.
The question of additional documents has also created confusion. At Rajouri Garden, some attendees said they were asked for PAN cards, although PAN was not among the 11 documents listed by the Election Commission. Electoral Registration Officer Iti Agarwal denied that PAN was mandatory. She said it was being accepted as an additional document for proof of date of birth when an elector had not brought a listed document or when the submitted document was considered unsatisfactory. Her clarification indicates that the official process may distinguish between mandatory documents and supplementary evidence, but that distinction is not always clear to people standing in crowded queues.
Digital access has not eliminated the physical burden. Notices contain a QR code linking to an online submission process, but many recipients reportedly did not know they could upload their documents. Paramjeet Thukral, who had moved from south Delhi to her parents’ home in Tagore Garden, said she attempted to submit documents online but the system indicated that she did not have the right documents. For residents who lack reliable connectivity, digital skills or money for an Internet café, online submission can become another layer of dependence rather than a faster alternative.
The exercise also relies heavily on frontline staff. Booth Level Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers are handling hearings, field visits and document scrutiny. A Booth Level Officer from north-east Delhi said training had been minimal while teachers assigned to the work were expected to conduct door-to-door visits. Another BLO from West Delhi said staff were serving notices through WhatsApp when residents in bungalows did not open their doors. These accounts suggest that the quality of the verification process depends not only on central rules but on the time, training, staffing and working conditions available at the last mile.
That institutional layer matters because the SIR is being implemented through interactions between citizens and officials, rather than through documents alone. When a notice is unclear, a phone call goes unanswered or a hearing is rescheduled, the practical responsibility shifts back to the applicant. For daily-wage workers, the consequence is measurable. Seema and her husband, whose names were changed, reportedly lost two days of wages while navigating the process and remained concerned about Internet café charges and future corrections. For elderly residents, the cost can include physical strain and the need for assistance from relatives.
The report also raises questions about consent and data handling. Digital rights activist Nikhil Pahwa, who received an SIR notice, said officials directed applicants to write mobile numbers on forms even though the numbers were optional. He questioned whether voter IDs were being linked to phone numbers without consent and whether consent was obtained for photographing voters. He said he planned to file a Right to Information application. These are reported concerns, not established findings, but they show how a verification drive can expand into a wider debate about the collection and use of personal data.
The administrative logic behind the revision is clear in principle: electoral rolls must be updated, duplicate entries identified and the names of deceased or relocated voters removed. But the Delhi experience described here shows that list cleaning and citizen inclusion are inseparable tasks. An error in a database may be corrected only if the person affected can identify it, understand the notice, locate the required record and appear before the appropriate official. Each step can fail independently.
This is especially important in a city shaped by migration and movement. Delhi’s residents include people who were born elsewhere, moved for work, live in rented or informal housing, share addresses with extended families and maintain documents issued by different State agencies. The report does not establish how many exclusions result from genuine ineligibility and how many arise from administrative errors. It does establish that a substantial number of people are being required to prove their eligibility under conditions that impose unequal costs on those with less time, money, literacy and institutional access.
The scheduled deadlines will determine whether the system can process the volume of notices fairly. Hearings are to be completed by October 29 and the final electoral roll published on November 4. Until then, the central question is not simply how many names are removed or retained. It is whether the review process can distinguish between a fraudulent entry, a deceased or shifted voter, and a genuine resident whose identity is obscured by a spelling error, missing certificate, old address or failure of official records to match.
Delhi’s SIR hearings therefore offer a wider lesson about urban governance: formal inclusion depends on the everyday capacity of institutions to communicate, correct records and accommodate residents whose lives do not produce a perfect paper trail. The final roll will show the numerical outcome. The hearings reveal the administrative cost of reaching it.
