The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is no longer limited to concerns about voters being asked to prove their eligibility or submit forms to remain on the rolls. The conscious and deliberate misuse of Form 7 for third party deletions, that too by dominatnpolitical actors, has been a recurring aspect of the controversial SIR process.
Widely reported investigations by The Hindu, both in Delhi and Karnataka have raised another serious question: who can or should initiate the process for deletion of voters, on what basis, and how effectively are such deletion processes being checked?
Incidentally, the obduracy within the existing Election Commission of India (ECI) –despite the reported “dissent” from two Commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu –is evident from the September 26 “clarificatory press note” issues by the Commission. This followed the sensational and important expose by The Indian Express on September 23. Even after the storm of protests that followed, the ECI continued to “allow” as many as 50 deletions per BLA (Booth Level Agent) of political parties, which is a misnomer for motivated mass deletions!
In Delhi’s Mustafabad Assembly constituency, hundreds of Form 7 applications seeking the deletion of Muslim voters have been linked to BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs), many of whom have reportedly denied filing or signing them. One BLA, however, claimed to have filed more than 500 such applications despite the Election Commission later imposing restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications an individual could file.
#Watch | An investigation has uncovered major questions surrounding voter deletion applications filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi’s Mustafabad. Public records show hundreds of Form 7 applications were filed in the names of BJP-appointed Booth Level Agents (BLAs). However, many of those individuals told The Hindu that they never submitted the applications or were unaware that forms had been filed using their names.
Reports: @suruchiarchives
Script: @Shikhaaaakarn
Edit: Mojan Raj E
https://t.co/xtenDPQzjS— The Hindu (@the_hindu) November 6, 2026
Meanwhile, in Karnataka, where SIR was also meant to identify and remove duplicate or ineligible entries, the final electoral rolls have continued to show serious errors. The Hindu found that in Mahadevapura Assembly constituency alone, 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people. There were also cases involving the same EPIC number appearing in two different constituencies and hundreds of instances of individuals having multiple voter IDs.
Together, the two developments raise serious questions about the claim that the SIR process is meant to ensure cleaner and more reliable electoral rolls.
What the Election Commission held on September 26
The Election Commission’s Press Note issued after its meeting on September 26, 2026 dealt directly with some of the concerns arising during the ongoing SIR process.
The September 26 Press Note does not alter or restrict the existing role of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) in relation to objections or applications for deletion through Form 7. Its directions primarily concern the handling of notices issued during the SIR and the facilitation of inclusion of persons whose names were left out. The Press Note does not address the powers or role of BLAs in filing or pursuing Form 7 objections against entries in the electoral roll, leaving that underlying process unaffected.
ECI caps individual Form 7 applications
In October, the ECI capped the number of Form 7 applications that an individual elector can file at 10 during the claims and objections period and five per month during continuous updation of electoral rolls. The Commission said bulk objections filed on unsubstantiated grounds could inconvenience the elector whose name is challenged and increase the workload of field-level officials. The limits apply to both online and physical submissions, while recognised political parties’ BLAs remain governed by separately prescribed limits.
Form 7: the route through which names can be challenged
Form 7 is used to seek the deletion of an existing elector’s name from the electoral roll or to object to the inclusion of a name.
During the continuing SIR process in Delhi, The Hindu reported that 1,021 deletion applications had been filed in Mustafabad. Of these, 787 applications — or about 77% of the total — named 20 BJP-appointed BLAs as the objectors.
All 787 applications were directed against Muslim electors.
The scale becomes even more significant when third-party applications alone are considered. According to the publicly available list of Form 7 applications on the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer’s website, 787 of the 837 deletion applications filed by third parties — around 94% — were linked to these 20 BJP BLAs. But when contacted by The Hindu, 16 of the 20 BLAs denied filing or signing the applications attributed to them. Many reportedly said they had no knowledge that forms had been submitted using their names.
The controversy is therefore not merely about whether deletion applications should ultimately succeed. It raises a prior and fundamental question: who actually filed the applications seeking the removal of these voters?
Applications allegedly filed in other people’s names
One of the BLAs named as an objector in 32 Form 7 applications, Ankit Yadav, reportedly denied filing any of them. According to The Hindu’s report, he said he discovered that his details had allegedly been used to seek the deletion of Muslim voters living in his own neighbourhood. He subsequently submitted a complaint and formally resigned as a BLA to party representatives.
The newspaper reported that, with the assistance of the local Booth Level Officer, the electors concerned were found living at their registered addresses.
The BLO also reportedly said that he had not received physical copies of the relevant Form 7 applications.
Another person, Nitin Kumar, was named as an objector in applications relating to an area which, according to him, was not even his area. He too denied filing the forms, although he had received messages relating to their verification. The report also identified several other BJP BLAs who were named as objectors in dozens of deletion applications but denied filing them. The forms reportedly cited reasons such as “absent/permanently shifted”, “already enrolled” and “death” for seeking the deletion of names. The question is therefore not simply whether a voter ultimately remains on or is removed from the roll. The controversy concerns the ability of applications for deletion to enter the official system in the first place, including allegations that individuals’ names and details may have been used without their knowledge.
One BLA says he filed ‘over 500’ applications
Among the 20 BLAs named in the applications, one person stood apart.
BJP BLA Robin Singh Dhama, named as an objector in 57 cases in the publicly available records cited by The Hindu, acknowledged filing Form 7 applications and claimed that he had submitted “500 of those”. His claim became particularly significant because the Election Commission had introduced restrictions on the number of Form 7 applications that could be filed by an individual elector.
On October 9, 2026, the ECI imposed a cap of 10 Form 7 applications from an individual elector during the entire claims and objections period.
BLAs are permitted to submit applications in bulk under a separate procedure, but this involves applications filled by other electors and submitted along with the prescribed undertaking.
Senior ECI officials had earlier told The Hindu that a BLA filing Form 7 applications in his own name as an objector, without the prescribed undertaking for bulk submissions, would be covered by the restriction. The newspaper further reported that the forms naming the 20 BLAs as objectors had been filed without the prescribed BLA undertaking or the prescribed format for such submissions.
The Delhi District Election Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer and the ECI did not respond to questions from The Hindu, according to the report. Earlier, the District Election Officer had stated that deletion claims would be physically verified by the BLO and the ERO or Assistant ERO, and that action would be taken against applications found to be false or “mischievous”.
What September 26 did not change
The September 26 order laid down procedures for voters who had received notices during SIR because they were “unmapped” or had “logical discrepancies”, and for those left out of the rolls. It provided for BLO visits, collection and uploading of documents, and routes for inclusion through continuous updation and a special enrolment drive.
However, it did not remove the wider statutory and administrative process through which objections to existing voters can be raised and deletion proceedings initiated. The Mustafabad controversy demonstrates why this remains significant: where hundreds of deletion applications are generated and persons named as objectors deny filing them, serious questions arise about the integrity, traceability and safeguards of the deletion mechanism.
SIR removes voters, yet duplicate entries remain
The developments in Delhi come alongside findings from Karnataka that raise a different question about the effectiveness of SIR. In Mahadevapura Assembly constituency, The Hindu found that 803 voter IDs were linked to just 397 people after the exercise, including cases of individuals having multiple voter IDs and the same EPIC number appearing in different constituencies.
The report also identified more than 500 cases of persons having multiple voter IDs within polling stations and around 300 cases across different polling stations. These findings are significant because SIR has been justified as a means of removing duplicate and ineligible entries and improving the accuracy of electoral rolls. Yet serious duplication and inconsistencies reportedly remained even after the process.
The problem is not only duplication — it is exclusion
These developments point to a larger contradiction. In Delhi, hundreds of voters could simultaneously become the subject of deletion proceedings, while in Karnataka, an intensive revision intended to improve accuracy still left substantial duplication and other errors in the rolls.
The issue, therefore, cannot be addressed only by providing procedures after voters receive notices or are left out of the rolls. A system that subjects existing voters to large-scale scrutiny and potential deletion must also demonstrate that it can prevent erroneous exclusion and ensure accuracy. Once a genuine voter is deleted, the burden of discovering the deletion and seeking restoration can fall on the voter.
Why the demands from the Online Assembly remain relevant
The continuing controversies surrounding SIR, Form 7 applications and errors in revised electoral rolls reinforce the demands adopted in the resolution of the Online Assembly.
The concerns raised across States show that the issues with SIR are not isolated errors but raise wider questions about scrutiny, exclusion and verification. The demand to scrap SIR therefore remains central.
The resolution also calls for institutional accountability, including disbanding the present Election Commission and repealing the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, to protect the independence and credibility of the electoral process.
Finally, it calls for reverting to the 2024 electoral rolls while ensuring the inclusion of all genuinely eligible new voters through a public audit process as is mandated. Electoral revision should expand participation and facilitate inclusion—not place existing voters at risk of exclusion or make the process of restoring their names unnecessarily difficult.
Related:
Public Hearing on Sewer Workers – Hearing the victims and their families
Does the ECI’s Nov 6 communication signal a step-back on re-enrolment in the ASSD list?