Rebuild electoral trust through reform

India’s electoral machinery is a triumph of democratic scale — more than 900 million voters, thousands of constituencies, and a process that has drawn admiration from around the world. Yet maintaining the integrity of that machinery demands constant renewal. Recent developments around the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar have drawn attention to both the strengths and the evolving challenges of India’s election system, opening a wider conversation about how transparency, consultation, and inclusion can be further strengthened.

In June 2025, the Election Commission of India announced a Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls to update lists that had grown outdated after years of migration, demographic change, and delayed revisions. The stated goal was clear — to ensure that every eligible citizen’s name appeared and that no ineligible or duplicate entry remained. As the exercise gathered pace, however, it also generated discussion among political parties, civil-society groups, and legal activists. Questions arose about the scale and timing of the process, the pace at which names were verified, and the clarity with which data were communicated to the public. While the Commission maintained that the revision followed due procedure, the ensuing debate reflected something deeper than administrative detail: it underscored the importance of trust and transparency at the heart of India’s democracy.

Stakeholders across the spectrum—including opposition parties and civic organisations —raised concerns broadly along three lines: consultation, communication, and confidence. Some felt that the planning and scheduling of the SIR could have involved wider consultation with political representatives and local bodies. Because the exercise coincided with the monsoon season and preceded local elections, a few observers worried that certain groups, especially migrants, the elderly, or citizens with limited documentation, might face practical hurdles in verifying their entries. These concerns point to the value of deeper dialogue and preparation to ensure full inclusion.

Data transparency was another area of public interest. Large-scale additions and deletions are normal in any voter-roll update, but when the numbers are significant, citizens naturally seek clarity on how those figures are derived. Greater accessibility to booth-level data — showing how many names were added, deleted, or corrected, and for what reason — would enhance public confidence. Without such clarity, even legitimate administrative corrections can appear opaque, particularly where communication on the ground is uneven.

The third and perhaps most important theme is confidence. Democracy relies not just on the right to vote, but on the assurance that one’s name is recognised on the rolls. When uncertainty creeps in, participation can suffer. The Supreme Court’s recent directions on the SIR have rightly emphasised the need for accuracy and due process. Yet, beyond compliance lies a broader democratic truth: electoral confidence depends as much on perception as on procedure.

These discussions point to a larger opportunity for India — to make voter registration both accurate and trusted. The answer lies not in reinventing institutions but in refining processes that connect them to citizens. Before launching major revisions, the Election Commission and state bodies could consider structured consultations with political parties, civil-society groups, and election observers. Publishing a clear roadmap outlining timelines, verification methods, and channels for appeal would make the process more inclusive. Openness in planning builds legitimacy in execution.

Equally vital is communication. Electoral rolls are public documents and must remain so in both spirit and practice. A transparent, easy-to-navigate digital dashboard showing updated figures for each constituency — inclusions, deletions, and corrections — would reassure the public that revisions are methodical, not arbitrary. Every voter whose name is flagged for deletion should receive timely notice and an opportunity to confirm their status. Proactive outreach can transform what is often viewed as a bureaucratic task into a participatory exercise in citizenship.

Timelines also matter. In a society as mobile as India’s, millions migrate for work or education each year. Revision drives need to accommodate such movement through mobile verification units, remote filing of claims, and local outreach. Civic organisations, youth volunteers, and community networks could help migrant and first-time voters update their registration. When inclusion becomes easier, voter confidence rises.

Oversight mechanisms could further enhance credibility. Independent review of a small sample of additions or deletions by accredited observers would strengthen public trust. In cases where large numbers are involved, a short period of provisional “flagging” before final deletion could allow for secondary verification and prevent inadvertent exclusions. Such checks would show that reform aims not only at efficiency but also at fairness.

At the heart of these measures lies a single principle: transparency is the foundation of electoral legitimacy. Accuracy is essential, but the perception of fairness is equally important. When voters feel uncertain about their status, confidence in the process can waver even if procedures are sound. India’s democratic institutions have evolved impressively over the decades — from paper ballots to electronic voting and digital registration. Each innovation has broadened participation; the next frontier must be to deepen trust.

It is also important to acknowledge the magnitude of the task before the Election Commission. Managing an electoral roll for over a billion people is a formidable administrative challenge, and periodic revisions are both necessary and inevitable. The SIR itself was conceived as a corrective measure — an effort to align demographic reality with democratic representation. The intent was sound; what remains is to match that intent with even greater consultation and clarity. When reform is accompanied by openness and dialogue, it strengthens rather than strains public faith.

India’s electorate is growing younger and more mobile with each election cycle. For first-time voters, the ease of registration and the certainty of being counted shape their sense of belonging to the political process. Inclusive rolls invite participation; uncertainty discourages it. The lessons of Bihar’s SIR extend well beyond one state; they reaffirm that procedural accuracy must go hand in hand with civic inclusion. Electoral reform is not merely about cleaning up lists; it is about reaffirming citizenship. Every eligible voter should not only be on the roll but should also know and feel that they are on it. The Election Commission has both the institutional experience and public respect to lead this renewal. What is needed now is a sustained emphasis on outreach, dialogue, and openness.

India’s democracy has always adapted to change — from expanding suffrage in 1951 to digitising voter registration in the 21st century. The next step must be to modernise transparency. The measure of a strong democracy is not only how many ballots are cast but how many citizens are certain they can cast them. If the voter roll is the backbone of democracy, transparency is its lifeblood — and strengthening both is the surest way to keep faith with the voter.