CEC Gyanesh Kumar Defends Voter Roll Purge Amid Allegations of Bias Ahead of Bihar Polls

The Election Commission of India (ECI) is facing intense scrutiny over its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, with accusations of political bias and mass disenfranchisement being levelled by opposition parties. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has publicly defended the exercise, asserting that cleansing the voter list is not only necessary but constitutionally mandated. The controversy stems from the EC’s recent decision to mark 56 lakh voters for deletion in Bihar, a poll-bound state. This includes 20 lakh deceased voters, 28 lakh who have permanently migrated, 7 lakh with duplicate registrations, and 1 lakh uncontactable individuals. Additionally, around 15 lakh voters have failed to return verification forms, placing them at risk of deletion. The opposition, particularly the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress, argue that this scale of deletion is an attack on voter rights and accuse the Commission of working in tandem with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to engineer a skewed voter base before the elections. However, such accusations raise deeper questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the role of the ECI.

The primary defence offered by the CEC revolves around the sanctity and credibility of the electoral roll. According to Gyanesh Kumar, allowing names of deceased individuals or those who have migrated to remain on the list creates an opportunity for electoral fraud and undermines public confidence in the democratic process. He questioned whether the Commission should permit such anomalies, and whether fake, duplicate, or even foreign names should be allowed to persist on a list that is meant to reflect the legitimate voting population of the country. These are not rhetorical diversions. The problem of voter roll inaccuracies is not new to India. In fact, over the years, civil society organizations, researchers, and political parties across the spectrum have voiced concern about ghost voters, inflated rolls, and widespread irregularities, especially in states with high migration and population flux.

The need for periodic and intensive revision of electoral rolls is enshrined in the Representation of the People Act, and the ECI is empowered to take corrective steps to ensure the authenticity of the voter base. In Bihar’s case, the Commission has presented data-based justifications: 20 lakh voters are verifiably deceased; 28 lakh have submitted documentation proving permanent migration to other states; and 7 lakh voters are registered in more than one constituency. These figures are not arbitrary—they are based on a statewide door-to-door verification campaign. While it is true that 15 lakh individuals did not return their verification forms, it does not automatically mean disenfranchisement. Due process, including follow-up visits and final publication of the voter list, still remains.

The central critique from the opposition lies in the timing and intent of the exercise. With state elections approaching, the mass deletions have triggered fear among voters, particularly in marginalized communities that often lack documentation or frequent communication channels. This fear, combined with India’s complex socio-political structure, feeds the suspicion that voter roll purges could be used strategically to influence electoral outcomes. The Commission, therefore, must not only act fairly but be seen to be acting fairly.

Transparency in process and public communication is critical. Any perceived opacity fuels distrust and questions the neutrality of the institution.

However, critics must also engage with the EC’s constitutional responsibility. Gyanesh Kumar’s statement that the voter list is the foundation of democracy is a crucial one. In an age where disinformation and electoral manipulation are global concerns, India cannot afford an electoral roll riddled with errors. The United States and several European democracies conduct regular audits and purges of their voter rolls, albeit with stronger data integration tools and safeguards for citizens’ rights. India’s scale and infrastructure challenges complicate this, but do not negate the importance of clean rolls. Voter fraud, though not rampant in India statistically, is not a fiction either. Proxy voting, bogus voting, and multiple enrollments have been identified in past elections by independent observers. Removing ineligible voters is not disenfranchisement—it is protection of genuine franchise.

The 56 lakh figure must also be seen in perspective. Bihar has over 7.3 crore registered voters. The proposed deletions, though large, represent around 7.6% of the electorate. Given the demographic churn and challenges in record-keeping in rural and low-literacy areas, such revision is not abnormal. What is essential, however, is the EC’s ability to communicate its methods clearly, provide adequate opportunities for correction and inclusion, and publish an appeals process that is accessible and fair.

The EC’s credibility hinges on two principles: independence and accountability. In defending the SIR, the CEC is not merely making a technical argument about database accuracy. He is staking the Commission’s legitimacy on its ability to resist political pressure while upholding democratic integrity. The question, then, is not whether voter rolls should be cleaned—there is overwhelming consensus that they must be. The real question is whether it is being done transparently, equitably, and without political influence.

As the matter moves to the Supreme Court on July 28, it will test not only the legality of the EC’s methods but also the broader trust in India’s electoral system. The judiciary, the Commission, and the public must all engage with the same underlying question that Gyanesh Kumar posed—should a democracy knowingly allow fake votes to determine its future? The answer must transcend political ideologies and affirm the principle that democracy, to be strong, must first be clean.