A dispute over the Delhi voter list has intensified after Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi alleged that 727 of 728 residents in the Bela Estate slum settlement along the Yamuna were removed from the electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
Gandhi visited the settlement on Monday and spoke to residents about their voting status and other difficulties. According to the report by Live Hindustan – NCR, he claimed that only one person from the settlement remained on the voter list after the revision. He also said residents had lived in the area for decades and had voted in both the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi Assembly election.
The allegation places the electoral status of residents in Bela Estate at the intersection of two administrative questions: how voter addresses are verified when settlements are informal or demolished, and whether the removal of a structure is being treated as evidence that its former residents no longer live in the area.
Gandhi said residents told him that their names had previously appeared on the electoral roll. He reportedly contacted the relevant sub-divisional magistrate by telephone from the settlement and asked why the names of 727 people had been removed when the area had 728 residents, according to his account.
He further argued that the absence of a formal house or a house number should not by itself remove a person’s right to vote. Referring to a reported position of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Gandhi said that “House Number 0” could be used for homeless voters. He described the alleged deletions as a way of taking away voting rights rather than a routine SIR exercise.
The central claim remains a political allegation attributed to Gandhi in the supplied report. The report also carries the explanation previously given by Delhi election officials: names of residents of the Bela Estate settlement were removed from the draft electoral roll because their houses had been demolished. It does not include the underlying electoral-roll records, deletion notices, field-verification reports or a detailed response from the Election Commission addressing the figure of 727 names.
The settlement’s housing history is central to the dispute. Gandhi said residents’ houses were demolished in 2023 but that the people themselves had continued to live in the area. If residents remain in or near a demolished settlement, the administrative question is whether electoral verification follows the loss of a structure or establishes each person’s current place of residence through other means.
For residents of informal settlements, the issue is not limited to documentation. Electoral rolls are maintained through addresses and field verification, while many low-income households live in locations that can change after eviction, demolition, flooding or redevelopment. The Bela Estate case therefore brings attention to how election administration handles people whose housing status is unstable but whose residency and voting history may continue.
The next steps will depend on the electoral authorities’ explanation of the deletions and on whether affected residents can seek review or restoration of their names. The available report does not state how many residents have filed claims or objections, whether the final electoral roll has been published, or what documentary process will be used to determine their eligibility.
