The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has become the subject of a wider national debate after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had formally raised objections to several decisions concerning voter additions, deletions, restoration of names, Form 6 and the management of electoral-roll data. Punjab, which is itself undergoing SIR ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections, is now facing increased political scrutiny over how its voter-roll revision is progressing.
There is, however, no established finding that Punjab’s SIR has been found illegal or that the state’s electoral-roll revision has been conducted improperly. The available data instead shows a large number of records undergoing verification, with most of the recently flagged cases cleared for inclusion.
According to The Indian Express investigation published on September 23, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders of the Election Commission which, according to them, had been taken without their knowledge. Their objections covered issues including the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and access to the electoral-roll database.
The investigation also reported that the two Commissioners raised concerns over what they described as increasing centralisation of the voter database. A separate report said they objected to changes in Form 6 that required new voters to provide information concerning whether their own, or their parents’ or grandparents’ names, appeared in earlier electoral rolls.
The national controversy does not, by itself, establish that the same problems occurred in Punjab. But it has added scrutiny to SIR exercises being conducted across states.
Punjab’s house-to-house enumeration phase covered 2,14,61,043 registered electors, according to figures as of June 9, 2026. By August 3, enumeration forms for 1,93,94,408 electors, or 90.37%, had been collected and digitised.
The remaining 20,66,635 records, or 9.63% of the electorate, were categorised during the exercise as cases involving voters who were deceased, permanently shifted, untraceable or duplicate.
The breakup was:
5,74,568 deceased electors
9,44,131 permanently shifted electors
4,12,715 absent or untraceable electors
1,19,145 duplicate entries
These figures add up to 20,66,559, with a small difference of 76 from the overall figure because of rounding or categorisation in the reported data.
The exercise also found that around 12 lakh voters could not initially be mapped with the 2003 electoral roll. Officials clarified that being unmapped did not automatically mean deletion or loss of voting rights. Such voters were to be given an opportunity to establish their eligibility through the claims and verification process.
The distinction is important: the 12 lakh unmapped voters and the 20.66 lakh ASDD category are not figures that should be added together.
Another important correction to the claims circulating around the issue is that Punjab’s draft electoral roll was published on August 13, 2026 for all 117 Assembly constituencies. The claims and objections period ran from August 13 to September 12, while disposal of claims and objections is scheduled to continue until October 8.
The final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on October 12, 2026.
22.69 lakh records flagged for logical discrepancies
The latest data provides another important part of the picture.
According to figures reported on September 23, 22.69 lakh electors in Punjab’s draft roll had been flagged by the ECI system for one or more “logical discrepancies” or anomalies in their records. These included issues such as mismatches in names or ages and certain inconsistencies involving family relationships in electoral records.
But these were not 22.69 lakh deleted voters.
Of the 22.69 lakh cases, 22.41 lakh, or 98.77%, had been addressed and cleared for inclusion in the final roll as of September 23. Around 27,700 cases remained pending at that stage. Officials said these remaining cases were expected to be decided by October 8.
This means the headline number of 22.69 lakh requires context: it represents records flagged for scrutiny, not voters finally excluded.
The political challenge to the exercise has now come from the Punjab Congress.
Punjab Congress president Amarinder Singh Raja Warring on September 24 demanded that SIR in the state be suspended until the Assembly elections. He also demanded that the 2027 election be conducted using the electoral rolls used for the 2024 Lok Sabha election, without deletions.
Warring specifically raised concerns about first-time voters and Form 6, arguing that the new requirements involving references to parents or grandparents in earlier electoral rolls could make registration difficult for eligible young voters. He also alleged that the SIR process could disenfranchise genuine voters. These are Congress’s political allegations and demands, rather than findings established by the Election Commission.
There is also an important factual issue in the Congress statement: its September 24 claim that Punjab’s draft electoral rolls were still “yet to be released” is outdated. The draft roll had already been published on August 13.
The available evidence does not establish that Punjab’s SIR is flawed or illegal. What it does establish is that millions of voter records have gone through additional verification, while a smaller number of cases are still awaiting disposal.
The key test will therefore be the final roll: how many names remain excluded, how many claims for inclusion are accepted, what happens to the unmapped voters and how many logical-discrepancy cases remain unresolved.
With the final electoral roll scheduled for October 12, that data will provide a clearer picture of the actual impact of SIR in Punjab ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections. Until then, the facts support describing the Punjab exercise as being under heightened political and public scrutiny, rather than concluding that the process has been proved improper.
