Sack CEC, scrap SIR, bring back ballot papers: DMK MPs to petition President

The DMK MPs adopted four resolutions challenging how elections and voter registration are being managed. Their demands target the Chief Election Commissioner, the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, voting machines, and the treatment of VVPAT records. The party says these issues could affect voter inclusion and public trust in elections.

Specifically, the DMK wants Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar removed. It wants SIR cancelled and future elections conducted using rolls that existed before the revision. It also wants EVMs replaced with ballot papers and all VVPAT slips counted. The article says the party has opposed SIR since July 2025 through meetings, court action, and protests.

The MPs will submit a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu. They allege SIR was rushed in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and other states, excluding genuine voters. The petition seeks action over alleged electoral irregularities and an inquiry into what the DMK calls Kumar’s unilateral decisions. It also places pressure on constitutional authorities before future elections.

A Special Intensive Revision is a detailed review of an electoral roll. Election officials verify existing entries, add eligible citizens, correct information, and remove people who are dead, duplicated, ineligible, or no longer resident. Unlike routine updates, an intensive revision can require broad rechecking of voters and supporting information. Its purpose is to make the roll accurate before an election.

The danger lies in the verification process. A voter may miss a notice, fail to submit a form, lack a requested document, or face an official data-entry error. Names can also be excluded when officials cannot confirm identity, address, or eligibility within a deadline. The person may remain eligible in reality but disappear from the roll used at polling stations.

The DMK alleges that SIR was rushed in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and other states and excluded genuine voters. The article does not provide the number removed. A fair process therefore needs clear notice, accessible verification, correction opportunities, appeals, and transparent publication of additions and deletions before voting begins.

The Chief Election Commissioner, or CEC, heads the Election Commission of India, the constitutional body responsible for supervising elections. The Commission prepares and updates electoral rolls, schedules elections, monitors campaign rules, oversees polling, and manages counting. The article identifies Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC and says the DMK wants him removed over alleged unilateral and partisan decisions.

The CEC has stronger removal protection than an ordinary government official. Under India’s constitutional arrangement, removal follows the same broad process used for a Supreme Court judge. Parliament must pass an address supported by the required special majorities, based on proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The President then issues the formal removal order. The President does not normally remove the CEC simply on a political request.

The DMK’s memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu therefore seeks action and an inquiry, rather than an automatic dismissal. Whether its allegations lead anywhere would depend on constitutional procedures, evidence, and parliamentary action. The article reports the demand, but does not report any removal decision or formal inquiry having begun.

The article does not state electorate totals for Bihar or Tamil Nadu. Recent electoral rolls place Bihar at approximately 7.4 crore electors and Tamil Nadu at approximately 6.2 crore. These are rounded figures, and the total can change when officials add voters, remove duplicates, or complete a revision. They should therefore be treated as scale estimates rather than figures supplied by the article.

The percentage matters because it applies to a very large base. One percent of 7.4 crore is about 7.4 lakh voters. One percent of 6.2 crore is about 6.2 lakh. Together, that is roughly 13.6 lakh people. Even a fraction of one percent can therefore represent hundreds of thousands of citizens who may be unable to vote if their names disappear.

That is why the DMK’s allegation of rushed SIR has political and administrative importance. A revision can improve accuracy, but mistakes become large in absolute numbers across major states. Authorities need public lists, individual notices, correction windows, and appeals so that scale does not turn small error rates into mass exclusion.

Restoring pre-SIR rolls would mean using the electoral register that existed before the intensive revision, as the DMK demands. The immediate benefit could be preventing eligible people from losing their voting opportunity because of rushed verification, missing documents, or administrative mistakes. It would also provide continuity while complaints about SIR are investigated.

The trade-off is that older rolls may contain entries needing correction. They can include names of deceased people, duplicate records, outdated addresses, or people who no longer meet eligibility rules. Returning to them would not automatically solve every problem. Officials would need to compare records, investigate disputed entries, and create a reliable method for adding newly eligible voters.

The article says the DMK wants future elections to use pre-SIR rolls, but it does not describe an implementation timetable. If adopted, administrators would need to publish the restored lists, explain changes, hear objections, and protect polling operations. The larger implication is a choice between immediate inclusion and longer-term roll accuracy, handled through transparent safeguards.

The DMK’s preference reflects its demand for a voting method that produces a directly visible paper ballot. Paper ballots let voters mark a physical choice and let officials count those papers. The article does not establish that EVMs caused an error; it reports the DMK’s political demand to replace them and its call for complete VVPAT counting.

VVPAT means Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail. When a voter selects a candidate on an EVM, the system prints a slip showing the choice. The slip is briefly visible through a window before it drops into a sealed box. It is intended to provide an independent paper record that can be checked against electronic totals during an audit or recount.

The DMK wants 100 per cent of VVPAT slips counted. That would make the paper records the full verification basis for electronic results, rather than relying on a limited sample. The article does not state whether authorities accepted this demand. Its practical implications would include more counting time, additional handling procedures, and stronger reconciliation between electronic results and paper records.

Electoral rolls begin with eligible citizens registering through the prescribed election process. Officials verify identity, age, citizenship, and ordinary residence, then publish the roll for objections and corrections. Rolls are updated when new citizens become eligible, voters move, names are corrected, or records must be removed after death, duplication, or loss of eligibility. Periodic revisions combine these updates into a broader review.

Fraud prevention requires evidence and consistency. Officials can compare applications with government records, investigate duplicate entries, verify addresses, and remove clearly ineligible names. But a database match or missing document should not automatically end a person’s voting right. Errors, migration, spelling differences, and unequal access to paperwork can create false exclusions.

Safeguards should include advance public notice, simple registration, local verification, draft lists, written reasons for proposed deletion, correction windows, independent appeals, and a final publication before polling. Officials should publish additions and deletions in an understandable form while protecting personal data. The DMK’s SIR objections show why accuracy and inclusion must be pursued together.