Extended timeline ensured accurate voter list: U.P. CEO

Uttar Pradesh is the largest State in India, both in terms of the electorate and the number of representatives, and you’ve been conducting elections since 2023. What are your experiences and what challenges have you faced?

We had more than 15 crore voters when we started the SIR. The most challenging aspect is that we have 403 Assembly and 80 Lok Sabha constituencies. So, having to remember the names of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), District Election Officers, and the issues of various districts or regions is one aspect which is different from other States. Second, Uttar Pradesh is also politically very important, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of the people who contest elections from the State. The last Lok Sabha election and before that the Assembly election were very hotly contested, so people are politically very aware. Politicians are also very knowledgeable about electoral laws, and political parties and their cadres are also very active. So, in terms of handling complaints, the number is huge, and this makes the task more challenging compared to some other States.

The SIR process in Uttar Pradesh has taken the longest among all other States till now. It began on October 27 last year, and on April 10, the final list will be coming out, which is nearly six months. Apart from the sheer size, what would you say are the other reasons that make its duration so long?

In Uttar Pradesh, the next election is about a year away, so there was no hurry to complete the exercise in less time. Thus, in order to have a rigorous exercise, lessen the pressure on the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and EROs, and decrease the chances of errors due to time pressure, we had sought more time from the Election Commission (EC). All political parties, in the five meetings we have had since the announcement of the SIR, also asked for more time. I think that it has helped, as you may have seen that in the first phase, there was some tension among the political parties. We had sent notices to about 3.26 crore people. This whole exercise has been conducted in a very smooth manner as we staggered the hearings.

So, if the time frame had been increased in other States as well, would the process have been smoother?

The conditions may be different [in other States]. For example, Rajasthan was one of the States where it was conducted very quickly. So, political parties may not have asked for more time. Accordingly, the CEO may not have asked for more time. Had they asked for more time, I think the EC would have granted it.

In U.P., we are yet to see the final list, but the draft list saw 2.89 crore names being deleted, which is the largest so far for any State. What is the reason for this?

One reason is that, for many years, people did not submit Form 7 for the deletion of the names of people who had died or shifted from their places of residence. There were about 46 lakh people whose names were removed because they had died, about 30 lakh because there were duplicate entries, and more than 1 crore were in the permanently shifted category.

Urban centres have seen the maximum number of deletions in the State. What is the reason for this? Also, have some people who had multiple registrations tried to retain their votes in villages rather than in cities?

The polling percentage of urban areas vis-à-vis rural areas is always lower. Normally, people attribute it to urban apathy, but that is not the correct or the only reason. Another reason is that in urban areas, the polling area is not well defined. New colonies are coming up, and over time, the polling areas get intermixed. This makes the upkeep of voter lists of urban polling stations much more difficult than in rural areas. Another reason is that in rural areas, everyone knows everyone. So, the job of a BLO becomes easier. In urban areas, we don’t have area-specific BLOs who work in that particular locality.

But have some people been left out because they were not present at their homes or were travelling?

It may have occurred, but not in substantial numbers. Because if someone is travelling, at least someone in the family would be there, so the enumeration form could be signed, apart from the voter, by any adult member of the house. Also, the enumeration phase in Uttar Pradesh was not for one month but for two months, so we had plenty of time for people to return home and fill out the form.

So, out of the 2.89 crore names that went out in the draft list, how many are we expecting to be back in the final list?

What I can tell you is that we have received about 86 lakh Form 6 submissions from October 27, 2025, when the SIR was announced in Uttar Pradesh, till March 6, 2026, the last date of the claims and objections period. This includes fresh voters as well as voters whose names were deleted for various reasons.

What is your opinion on the proposal for a new single electoral roll for general and local body polls? Would it make your job easier?

In some States like U.P., the State Act states that the State Election Commission will prepare its own electoral rolls. But in some other States, they take the electoral roll of the Assembly constituencies and then divide it as per their wards. So, the EC had a conference with State Election Commissioners some months ago, and these issues were discussed.

Then, there is also a difference as far as the eligibility of a voter is concerned. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, if a person owns a residence in a particular area, is 18 years or older, and is a citizen of India, then he or she is eligible to be enrolled in the electoral roll for local body election of that area. But for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, merely owning a residence is not enough; you should also be normally residing in that place. This eligibility condition is different for different States as per their own Acts. So, the first step should be having a common eligibility criterion, the same as the one that is being used for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, and then it can be implemented.

Sobhana K. Nair: What are the things that you think the Election Commission could have done better, especially considering the pressure BLOs were under, mainly about training?

I think we were given plenty of time before the SIR started, and we had training sessions conducted. I think each District Election Officer was trained for one whole day on electoral rolls. All 403 EROs were also trained for a whole day. Similarly, they were asked to train their Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) and BLOs. The only thing that was new during SIR was the enumeration form and the two columns where the person had to write the name, which was present in the electoral rolls when the last SIR had been conducted. On that part, I think our training could have been better, in the sense that there should not have been any doubt in a BLO’s mind about how to fill out that form. I also think that there should be sufficient time from announcing the SIR to the start of the enumeration phase. In U.P., we also had to struggle to search for the last SIR electoral rolls.

Vijaita Singh: Have you been able to identify illegal immigrants because that was one of the mandates of this exercise?

So, the first thing I would like to clarify is that finding illegal immigrants is not the objective of the SIR exercise. The objective is that all eligible persons should be on the electoral roll, and all persons who are not eligible should not be on the electoral roll. More than 2.88 crore names were deleted during the enumeration phase. So, if a person does not sign the enumeration form, we don’t know whether it is because the person is not there, the person is not eligible, or the person is an illegal immigrant. Because of the design of the SIR process and the provisions of the Citizenship Act, through this exercise, we are pretty confident that those who have come on the electoral roll now are citizens of India.

Devesh K. Pandey: There is a huge chunk of migrant workers in States like U.P. Where are they eligible to register to vote?

Actually, the rule is that one can become a voter in a place where one is normally residing. So, if someone from U.P. has a permanent job in Mumbai, for example, he or she is eligible to vote in Mumbai, not in the village where he or she came from. Such people who go for employment should vote at the place of residence back home.

Sobhana: How do you define an ordinary resident? One of the previous manuals said we cannot come up with a concrete definition, and therefore, we leave it to the ERO. So, aren’t we leaving a lot of power in the hands of the lower bureaucracy to decide? And do we need a concrete definition?

There is no definition of ordinary residence as of now. Earlier, it used to be about one year, then there was some amendment, and the period of residing for a fixed period was removed. This question has come up in many Supreme Court judgments, and the settled position now is that a place of ordinary residence is where you go back after work. For example, if you are working in Delhi and go back to your village in Baghpat, that is your place of residence.

Sandeep Phukan: The Supreme Court mandated that the Aadhaar card should be accepted as an additional document in the case of Bihar, but it was not being accepted in Uttar Pradesh. Why was that? For most poor people, Aadhaar is the easiest document to furnish to prove their identity and their place of residence.

In the case of Uttar Pradesh, as in Bihar, Aadhaar was one of the documents given in the list of documents by the EC. But there was some caveat in the EC’s letter of a particular date, as also in the Supreme Court’s order, which had to be followed. It stated that Aadhaar is to be taken as a proof of identity, but not as a proof of address or as proof of date or place of birth.

A.M. Jigeesh: Earlier, it used to be the practice that the State, in this case the constitutional authority, which is the Election Commission, ensured that each citizen who had crossed 18 years got to vote. Now it is up to the voter. Are we turning to a kind of American system where voters have to go and register?

From the beginning itself, the first step had to be always taken by the voter; unless one fills up Form 6, the name cannot be there in the electoral rolls. This was the system earlier, and this is the system now. The only difference is that earlier, only the declaration of a person that “I am a citizen of India” was enough. But now, the design of the SIR has made it compulsory that one has to show some connection, either through parents or grandparents, to be a citizen of India.

Jacob Koshy: The primary purpose of cleaning up the electoral rolls and having these periodic exercises is that people vote in the place where they are supposed to. But with the kind of technological innovations that we have now, do you think that after 10 years, such exercises would even be necessary?

Yes, I think with the technology that is coming up, we can make sure that we do not have an SIR to clean up the electoral rolls.

Anuj Kumar: What about Form 7? Do you think that it has become a tool for coordinated voter suppression in some areas? What was your experience with it?

My answer in brief is no. What Form 7 does is that it gives us a starting point for an inquiry. So, you can file 100 Form 7s, but if a person is eligible, there is no way that the name will be removed. In the case of U.P., there were many complaints by political parties that there were bulk forms, but the number of Form 7s that we took on board was not much. My guess is about 2-3 lakh. The number of people whose names got deleted because of the filing of Form 7 by another person is very low. We will be giving the numbers on April 10.