Anand Sharma Questions Legality of SIR, Says 13 Crore Voters Have Been Denied Voting Rights

 

Anand Sharma Questions Legality of SIR, Says 13 Crore Voters Have Been Denied Voting Rights

Shimla, October 18: Former Union Minister and senior Congress leader Anand Sharma has raised serious concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, questioning its legal basis, the deletion of voters’ names and the lack of transparency in the process. He alleged that around 13 crore (130 million) Indian voters have so far been deprived of their right to vote and called for the ongoing SIR exercise to be scrapped.

Sharma said evidence regarding the issue was available in the Election Commission’s own records. He stressed that the intentions behind the exercise and alleged violations of the law needed to be investigated.

“The Constitution mandates the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections and guarantees every adult Indian citizen the right to vote,” Sharma said, questioning the legal justification for the process.

He challenged the Election Commission’s reliance on electoral records dating back to 2002, asking what special significance that year held under the law.

“Where does the law state that the year 2002 has any special significance? It was 24 years ago. How many Indians have been born since then?” he asked, adding that young people, particularly those who have become eligible to vote during this period, were concerned and angry.

Sharma described the decision as arbitrary and pointed out that two of the three Election Commissioners had reportedly expressed their views openly on the matter. He argued that their statements could not simply be ignored, as they were not allegations originating from opposition parties.

Questions Raised Over Electoral Roll Management

The Congress leader also questioned the procedure for adding and deleting names from electoral rolls. He acknowledged that the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, contain provisions governing voter registration, but stressed that the prescribed legal procedures must be followed.

According to Sharma, the electoral registration process begins with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), supported where necessary by Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs), followed by District Election Officers (DEOs) and State Chief Electoral Officers, all operating within the Election Commission’s framework.

He said the earlier system had a network of electoral registration officials responsible for uploading data, although it was not entirely free of shortcomings. However, he alleged that the new system had significant deficiencies and lacked transparency and accessibility.

“There is no confidence in the new system. Nobody has access to it. The access must be restored,” Sharma said, calling for electoral registration officials and state-level election authorities to be given full access to the relevant data and systems.

He described the developments as unacceptable and illegal, citing concerns reportedly expressed by two Election Commissioners.

Objection to Use of Form 6 for Deleted Voters

Sharma also raised concerns over changes relating to Form 6, which is generally used by eligible individuals applying for inclusion in the electoral rolls as new voters.

He alleged that people whose names had been wrongly deleted were now being asked to submit Form 6 to register again, effectively placing the burden of correcting the situation on those affected.

According to Sharma, this approach was unfair to citizens who had already been registered as voters and subsequently found their names missing from the electoral rolls.

He questioned why such individuals should be required to submit a declaration intended for new voter registration when they were seeking restoration of their existing voting rights.

“How can this be done?” he asked, arguing that the process could place affected citizens in an unjust position.

Sharma maintained that the responsibility for ensuring accurate electoral rolls should not be shifted entirely onto voters, particularly first-time and young voters. He also pointed to the recorded figures concerning deletions from electoral rolls, saying the data warranted scrutiny.

Calls for Accountability from Chief Election Commissioner

The Congress leader expressed concern over what he described as the silence of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid the controversy.

He said several High Courts had delivered rulings concerning related matters and argued that the Election Commission needed to address the concerns surrounding the electoral revision exercise.

Sharma said public confidence in the institution responsible for conducting elections was essential to the functioning of democracy. He argued that any serious erosion of that confidence required accountability and corrective action.

He called on the government and the Election Commission to recognise the gravity of the situation, adding that restoring the fairness and credibility of India’s electoral system should be a priority.

Sharma also called for the ongoing SIR exercise to be cancelled and reiterated that EROs and State Chief Electoral Officers must be given full access to the relevant electoral records and systems.

Opposition Parties United on the Issue

Sharma asserted that opposition parties were united in their concerns over the SIR exercise and said there was no ambiguity in their position.

Asked whether the controversy could affect the 2027 Assembly elections, he said it was difficult to predict the impact on voters whose names had been deleted and who might consequently be unable to exercise their franchise.

However, he warned that a “trust deficit” had emerged, with people increasingly concerned about the integrity of the electoral process.

Sharma said the situation needed to be addressed to restore public confidence in the election machinery. He maintained that ensuring transparency, accountability and proper access to electoral data was essential to protecting voters’ rights.

He concluded by calling for the Election Commission to take corrective steps and said the country should await the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.