The capital has witnessed a series of protests over the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with opposition parties, civil society organisations and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) raising concerns over the deletion of voters’ names and its potential impact on democratic participation.
The controversy triggered protests, turning the streets around Parliament, Akashvani Bhawan and Jantar Mantar into focal points of political confrontation. The INDIA bloc has accused the poll panel of undermining electoral fairness, while the CJP has emerged as a prominent voice demanding accountability and a review of the exercise.
According to the figures cited by protesters, approximately 47 lakh names have been removed from Delhi’s voter lists. The scale of the alleged deletions has intensified public anger, with opposition leaders and civil society representatives demanding transparency, explanations for the removals and safeguards to ensure that eligible citizens are not deprived of their right to vote.
Politics of the matter
The Election Commission’s SIR exercise is intended to revise electoral rolls, but the process has become a contentious political issue amid allegations that eligible voters could be excluded. The commission’s procedures and the reasons for individual deletions remain central to the dispute.
The protests gained momentum when Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra joined opposition MPs in demonstrations seeking the resignation of the chief election commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar. The leaders attempted to march towards the Election Commission’s headquarters to press their demands for accountability and greater transparency. However, police barricades prevented the demonstrators from proceeding as planned, leading to a tense standoff near Akashvani Bhawan.
Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi continued their protest despite restrictions imposed by the police. Their presence drew considerable attention to the dispute, as opposition leaders sought to frame the issue as a question of democratic rights rather than merely an administrative disagreement over electoral records.
The demonstration eventually resulted in the detention of the Gandhi siblings and several other opposition leaders. The confrontation near Akashvani Bhawan became a defining moment in the unfolding protests, highlighting the growing distance between the opposition and the Election Commission over the revision exercise.
The leaders maintained that the removal of eligible voters from electoral rolls could have serious consequences for political representation. They demanded that the commission explain the basis for the deletions and establish a transparent mechanism through which affected citizens could challenge their exclusion.
Continue the campaign
The protests did not end with the initial confrontation. Opposition leaders continued to coordinate their response, holding discussions and maintaining pressure on the authorities over the following days.
During this period, INDIA bloc leaders reportedly met over lunch at restaurants, including Sagar Ratna and Moets, before continuing their political activities. The meetings provided an opportunity for leaders to discuss their strategy, coordinate their demands and consider how to sustain the campaign against the SIR exercise.
The protests entered another significant phase on October 10, when the CJP called for a protest at Jantar Mantar. The CJP sought to mobilise public opinion against what it described as the exclusion of voters from electoral rolls. However, the planned gathering was met with a substantial security response. Police restrictions, barricades and preventive detentions complicated efforts by protesters to assemble at the designated site.
On Saturday, the situation across the city remained tense with political confrontations and preventive police action. Several CJP leaders were reportedly detained as the authorities moved to contain the demonstration. For the administration, the immediate priority was to prevent fresh confrontations and maintain normalcy.
For protesters, the challenge was to sustain public pressure without allowing the movement to lose momentum. Opposition parties and civil society groups continued to demand answers about the alleged deletion of voters’ names. The CJP, meanwhile, sought to maintain its position at the forefront of the agitation.
Electoral transparency at the centre of the debate
The protests have placed the Election Commission’s role in maintaining accurate and inclusive electoral rolls under renewed scrutiny.
A voter list must be accurate enough to prevent duplication and ineligible registration, but the process must also protect the participation of every eligible citizen. The challenge lies in ensuring that administrative revisions do not create barriers for people entitled to vote.
The allegations surrounding the reported deletion of 47 lakh names in Delhi require detailed examination, including verification of the figures and clarification of the reasons behind the removals. The Commission’s response, alongside the availability of effective appeals procedures, will be crucial to addressing public concerns.
The protests led by opposition leaders, the participation of civil society groups and the CJP’s mobilisation have demonstrated the political sensitivity of electoral roll revisions.
As Delhi moves into another day of heightened political attention, the larger question remains whether the controversy can be resolved through transparency, accountability and a credible process for reviewing disputed deletions.
Ultimately, confidence in elections depends not only on accurate voter lists but also on the assurance that no eligible citizen is unfairly denied the opportunity to participate in democracy. The resolution of the SIR dispute will therefore be watched closely by political parties, civil society organisations and voters across the country.
Before publishing, independently verify the specific figure of 47 lakh Delhi deletions, the details of the lunch meetings, and the identities and circumstances of those detained. Contemporary reporting describes the October 2026 protests over SIR and the detention of opposition leaders, but figures reported for nationwide deletions differ substantially from the Delhi-specific figure in the proposed article.
Into the city’s revised rolls
ASDD stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate, the categories used to classify electors whose enumeration forms could not be collected during the SIR of electoral rolls. Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer lists five categories: deceased, untraceable or absent, permanently shifted, already enrolled and others. The inclusion of the fifth category is reflected in the term ASDDO, while earlier phases used ASD.
Of Delhi’s 14,510,299 electors, 67.2% forms were digitised for the draft electoral roll published on August 31. The remaining 32.8% were classified as uncollectable. Of these, 66.4% were marked permanently shifted, 24.7% untraceable or absent, 5.9% deceased and 3% already enrolled elsewhere.
An analysis of Delhi’s 70 Assembly constituencies reveals significant differences in these classifications. Vikaspuri has the highest share of untraceable or absent electors at 56.55% and New Delhi has the lowest with 9.18%. The data, although it has a scope of 1% errors, reflects the composition of uncollectable forms, not the proportion of each constituency’s electorate excluded from the draft roll.
A low share of absent electors does not necessarily mean fewer deletions overall. A news report cited by the Internet Freedom Foundation found that 33% to 40% of electors added before the February 2025 election in New Delhi were subsequently deleted. These included residents of an institution for the blind reportedly classified as permanently shifted.
The classification of electors as untraceable or absent has raised concerns about consistency and accountability. No published Election Commission order defining this category was identified in the material reviewed. The requirement of three or more visits by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) has been documented for other phases but not conclusively established for Delhi. The wide variation across constituencies also raises questions about whether the criteria were applied consistently.
Gender-wise figures show broadly similar patterns among women and men. Untraceable or absent electors account for 24.99% of uncollectable forms among women and 24.50% among men, while permanently shifted electors account for 66.46% and 66.32%, respectively. The corresponding figures for the third-gender category are 36.68% and 59.44%, though the underlying population size was not provided. While the data identify patterns in the classification of uncollectable forms, they do not establish whether individual exclusions were justified.