The controversy over the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to conduct a special voter list revision — and the Opposition’s loud protests against it — has prompted me to pen these thoughts. What strikes me as astonishing is the contradiction in the Opposition’s position.
On the one hand, the Congress and its allies accuse the EC of manipulating the voter list to favour the ruling BJP-led NDA, dismissing the government’s electoral success as mere engineering rather than a product of political strategy, organisational work, and governance. On the other hand, they now oppose the EC’s attempt to revise and clean the rolls — a process meant precisely to remove bogus entries that could undermine free and fair elections.
Having been a professional teacher for over three decades, and having personally been involved in voter roll and population census exercises, I can speak to the nuts and bolts of the process — and the misconceptions surrounding it.
Few can dispute the direct connection between the population census and the voter list. Even in the most advanced countries, census data is never perfect. In India, during T.N. Seshan’s tenure as Chief Election Commissioner, there was a determined push to improve accuracy. Back then, municipalities and local bodies took on the bulk of the work: physically verifying house numbers, counting residents in each locality and ward, and compiling this data manually.
Teachers, lecturers, and state government employees were drafted into these duties, just as they are during elections. Teams of 15 worked under a supervisor, conducting door-to-door surveys and submitting daily reports to the municipal corporation headquarters.
The work was anything but straightforward. Territorial demarcations often overlapped or were inconsistent. Many homes had multiple numbering systems — plot numbers that didn’t match municipal house numbers. Locked houses, absent residents, and mismatched records created constant obstacles.
As supervisors — a role often assigned to gazetted officers — we bore responsibility for the final reporting. In my experience, only teachers carried out their duties with full sincerity; the performance of others was, frankly, questionable. All these shortcomings were documented, but in those days, it was all on paper.
With digitisation, one might expect the process to be far smoother today. Indeed, technology has made data compilation easier. Yet the key variable remains unchanged: the cooperation and coordination of regional offices. Without that, even the most sophisticated digital tools cannot guarantee accuracy.
Decades ago, we suggested reforms that still hold merit. Why not involve elected representatives from day one of their tenure in overseeing voter list maintenance in their constituencies? They could serve as the official point of accountability, ensuring that errors are fixed and anomalies are addressed promptly. Unfortunately, such proposals have rarely been taken seriously.
Unless the elected representative is made responsible for the accuracy of the voter list, the disorder will persist. Cleaning the rolls is like wiping a slate before writing on it — if the slate is already cluttered with junk, anything written will be unclear and unreliable.
When I teach about the Election Commission, the first concept I emphasise is the population census. This is foundational knowledge for any aspiring bureaucrat preparing for competitive exams. India has held around fifteen general elections since Independence, many of them hailed as free and fair. But a truly credible election system rests on the accuracy of its very base: the voter list.
Getting that base right is a Herculean task, but it must be done — and redone periodically. If we cannot ensure that every eligible citizen is on the rolls and every ineligible name is removed, then all our talk of electoral integrity is little more than noise.
The irony is that those now shouting the loudest about election manipulation are the same voices resisting the very exercise that could prevent it.
