SIR: Around 1,600 foreigners identified on voter rolls in six states, reports ‘Hindustan Times’

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an election exercise to review and update voter lists. Authorities check existing entries and identify names that may no longer belong on the rolls. The exercise can affect who is eligible to vote in future elections.

The Election Commission launched the first phase in Bihar in 2025. It said one reason was the inclusion of names of foreign illegal immigrants. During the process, states also identified voters who were absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, or placed in an “Others” category.

The revision matters because deletions can change the final electorate. The article reports that more than 99.3 lakh names were deleted in Karnataka alone. Concerns have been raised that genuine Indian voters could also be removed. The Supreme Court upheld the revision’s legality but limited the Commission’s power over citizenship decisions.

Officials in six states identified a total of 1,640 people as foreign citizens during the SIR exercise. Those states together had about 9.86 crore electors. The identified group therefore accounted for nearly 0.02% of the total electorate, making it a very small share of the rolls.

The total combines figures from Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, and Mizoram. Karnataka reported 716 cases, Kerala around 500, Goa 419, Jharkhand three, and Meghalaya two. Mizoram reported no such cases. The figures came from state officials who responded to newspaper queries.

The Election Commission said it had never asked states to collect foreign-citizen data separately. It also said such cases were placed under “Others” in its ASDDO category. Odisha reported finding such cases but did not record the number, so its cases are not included in the total.

The six states reporting foreign-citizen cases were Karnataka, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Kerala, Goa, and Mizoram. Together, their reports produced a total of 1,640 identified foreign citizens. Four other states told the Hindustan Times they did not maintain such data, while Odisha reported cases without counting them.

Karnataka had the largest number, with 716 people identified for removal. This included 545 Nepalese citizens in Bengaluru North. Kerala reported around 500 people with foreign citizenship, and Goa found 419 foreign passport holders. Jharkhand identified three citizens, all from Afghanistan.

Meghalaya found two men of Nepalese origin, both married to Indian women. Mizoram reported no such cases. The numbers came from 11 state responses to queries sent to chief electoral officers in 26 states and Union territories where the revision was complete or draft rolls were published.

The 1,640 foreign citizens identified across six states were far fewer than the voter names deleted during the revision. The deletions included people removed for reasons beyond foreign citizenship, such as being absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, or listed under “Others.”

Karnataka deleted more than 99.3 lakh names from its final voter list, compared with 716 foreign-citizen cases. Kerala deleted more than 8.9 lakh names and Goa more than 1.2 lakh. Jharkhand’s draft list deleted more than 43.6 lakh names, while Meghalaya deleted more than 1.6 lakh.

These figures show that foreign-citizen identification formed only a small part of the wider roll-cleaning exercise. The Election Commission said it did not ask states to collect such cases separately. Some states therefore did not maintain a distinct count, making broader comparisons difficult.

A person identified as a foreign citizen can have their name removed from the electoral roll. In Karnataka, for example, officials identified 716 foreign citizens for removal. Similar cases were reported in Kerala, Goa, Jharkhand, and Meghalaya. Mizoram reported none.

The process treats the finding as an electoral-roll issue. The Election Commission said foreign-citizen cases were placed under “Others” in ASDDO, meaning Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, and Others. It also said states were not specifically asked to collect this information, so recording practices differed.

Removal from the voter list does not give the Election Commission final authority to decide citizenship. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of SIR but said the exercise does not mean the Commission can determine whether a person is an Indian citizen. The article does not describe a separate citizenship proceeding.

The Election Commission said it conducted SIR partly because foreign illegal immigrants’ names were allegedly included in electoral rolls. The first phase began in Bihar in 2025, then expanded to 12 states and Union Territories in late 2025 and the first half of 2026. The goal was to review and update voter lists.

The concern is that identifying and deleting questionable entries may also affect genuine voters. The article reports fears that the revision could eliminate legitimate voters from the rolls and even shape electoral outcomes. Deletion numbers were large in several states, including more than 99.3 lakh names in Karnataka and more than 43.6 lakh from Jharkhand’s draft list.

The Supreme Court upheld SIR’s legality but clarified that it does not let the Commission decide citizenship. Concerns continued after the exercise, with some BJP-ruled states citing SIR deletions while denying ration cards or passport renewals.

The Election Commission’s role in SIR is to revise electoral rolls. It can examine entries and remove names that officials consider ineligible for the voter list. This administrative role helps maintain the rolls, but it is not the same as making a final legal finding about a person’s nationality.

The distinction matters because a voter-list decision can affect whether someone votes, while citizenship involves a broader legal determination. The article reports that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of SIR in May but specifically said the exercise does not mean the Commission can decide whether a person is an Indian citizen.

Therefore, identifying someone as a foreign citizen during roll revision does not give the Commission unlimited citizenship powers. The article does not identify which other authority would make a final determination. It does show that the Court placed a clear limit on the Commission’s role.