US lawmaker Pramila Jayapal says India’s move to ‘purge’ 13 crore voters is ‘anti-democratic’

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused exercise to check, update, and correct electoral rolls. Election officials review voter information and identify entries that may be duplicated, outdated, or unsupported. The aim is to keep voter lists accurate before elections. However, the process matters because removing a name can prevent a person from voting.

In India’s current exercise, concerns have focused on how names are being checked and deleted. The article says the revision began in June 2025 and could affect 13 crore people. It also reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected 14 times to related decisions, saying some were taken without their knowledge.

The Supreme Court upheld the exercise’s legality in May, but set an important boundary. It said the Election Commission could conduct the revision without deciding whether someone is an Indian citizen. Protests continue because critics fear genuine voters may be removed and electoral outcomes affected.

The article says India’s move could “purge” 13 crore persons from the electoral rolls. In India’s numbering system, one crore equals 10 million. Therefore, 13 crore equals 130 million, or 130,000, in the international system. The figure describes the scale of people potentially affected, not a confirmed number of voters already removed.

The concern is significant because electoral-roll deletions can directly affect access to elections. Since the SIR began in June 2025, critics have warned that genuine voters could disappear from the lists. The revision has also become a focus of protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission.

The article does not provide a final count of actual deletions. It reports concerns, investigations, and allegations about the process. The Supreme Court upheld the exercise’s legality but said the Election Commission cannot decide citizenship while checking voter eligibility.

Protesters accuse the Election Commission of undermining voting rights because they believe the SIR could wrongly remove genuine voters from electoral rolls. If eligible people disappear from the lists, they may be unable to cast ballots. Critics also fear that large-scale deletions could shape electoral outcomes, making the accuracy and fairness of the process central concerns.

The article identifies several triggers for the protests. An Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected 14 times in 10 months to SIR-related decisions. They said some decisions were made without their knowledge. Protests also followed alleged irregularities in how the revision was conducted.

Demonstrations are taking place in several parts of India. Protesters are calling for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. The article says around 7,000 Delhi protesters were detained and allegedly assaulted on October 10. Pramila Jayapal called for non-violent resistance and free, fair elections.

India’s Election Commission is the poll panel responsible for overseeing electoral rolls and the elections that use them. In an SIR, it supervises the checking and updating of voter entries. This includes handling information about who should remain on the rolls and who may be removed. The article presents the Commission as the institution at the center of the dispute.

The current controversy concerns the Commission’s handling of the SIR. The article says Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected 14 times to related decisions over 10 months. They reportedly said some decisions were taken without their knowledge. Protesters have also questioned Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and demanded his resignation.

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the exercise in May, but limited the Commission’s authority. It said checking eligibility does not allow the Commission to decide whether someone is an Indian citizen. That distinction is important because voter-list administration is not the same as deciding citizenship.

The clearest consequence of wrongful removal is exclusion from the electoral roll. A person whose name is absent may be unable to vote, even if that person is otherwise eligible. This is why critics connect the revision to voting rights and electoral fairness. The article says the exercise could eliminate genuine voters and shape electoral outcomes.

The reported effects may extend beyond voting. The article says Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states have cited the SIR to deny ration cards to people eliminated from the rolls. In some cases, police have denied permission for their passports to be renewed. These examples show how a voter-list decision can affect access to other services or official processes.

The article does not describe a completed appeal system or give a final number of wrongly removed people. The Supreme Court upheld the SIR’s legality but said the Election Commission cannot decide citizenship. Protests continue over the process and its possible consequences.

The Supreme Court’s distinction protects the boundary between maintaining voter lists and deciding citizenship. The Election Commission can check whether an entry meets voting-list requirements, but that administrative review does not automatically give it authority to make a final citizenship determination. Citizenship is a separate legal question with its own procedures and institutions.

The article says the Court upheld the legality of the SIR in May. At the same time, it clarified that this approval did not mean the Election Commission could decide whether a person is an Indian citizen. This matters because a voter-list review could otherwise become a broader citizenship screening exercise.

The boundary remains important amid the current controversy. The article reports that some BJP-ruled states cited SIR deletions when denying ration cards, while police sometimes denied passport renewals. Those developments intensified concerns about the consequences of voter-roll decisions, even though the article does not detail the Court’s full reasoning.

Voter-roll accuracy matters because elections depend on eligible voters being listed correctly. Removing duplicate or invalid entries can improve the rolls, but deleting genuine voters can deny them participation. Independence matters for the same reason: decisions should follow consistent rules rather than political pressure or institutional preferences. Otherwise, the result may not reflect the eligible electorate.

The article gives examples that raised these concerns. An investigation reported 14 objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to SIR-related decisions. They said some were made without their knowledge. Critics also warn that the revision could remove genuine voters and shape electoral outcomes. These claims make transparency and oversight central to the dispute.

The Supreme Court upheld the exercise but said the Commission cannot decide citizenship. Protests continue, including calls for Gyanesh Kumar to resign. Pramila Jayapal said Indians deserve free and fair elections. The article leaves the revision’s final effects unresolved, so public confidence will depend on how the process proceeds.