SIR: Amit Shah claims three crore deleted voters are ‘Bangladeshi infiltrators’

Amit Shah claimed that 13 crore names were removed during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. His most striking allegation was that three crore of those names belonged to “Bangladeshi infiltrators” and represented people who never existed. He said these votes should be deleted.

Shah divided the removals into broad categories. He said more than 6.2 crore voters had shifted, nearly three crore had died, and over one crore entries were duplicates. He presented the allegedly nonexistent names as bogus votes that could help the Congress capture elections.

The claim is politically contested. Opposition parties have raised concerns that the revision could remove genuine voters and affect election outcomes. The article reports Shah’s allegation but does not provide independent evidence confirming that the three crore deleted names were Bangladeshi infiltrators.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an exercise to review and revise electoral rolls. The article does not give a detailed procedural definition, but it describes SIR as a voter-roll revision conducted across states and Union Territories. Its purpose is to identify entries that may have changed, been duplicated, or become invalid.

The scale shows how the mechanism works in practice. In Bihar, the first phase began in 2025. The exercise then expanded to 12 states and Union Territories in the second phase, while a third phase is underway in 19 states and Union Territories. Shah attributed millions of removals to shifted, deceased, duplicate, or allegedly nonexistent voters.

SIR matters because electoral rolls determine who can participate in elections. The exercise can make rolls more accurate, but the Opposition fears genuine voters could be deleted. That is why the revision has become a legal and political controversy, with protests and demands for accountability.

The article reports that 13 crore voters were removed from electoral rolls during the revision in the areas covered. This number became central to the political dispute because Opposition parties alleged that voters were intentionally deleted. Shah offered a different explanation, dividing the removed names into several categories.

According to Shah, more than 6.2 crore voters had shifted, nearly three crore had died, and over one crore entries were duplicates. He separately claimed that three crore votes belonged to people who never existed and called them “Bangladeshi infiltrators.” These figures were presented as reasons for deleting the names.

The categories describe Shah’s account, not an independently verified breakdown in the article. The reported totals also use approximate terms such as “more than,” “nearly,” and “over.” The dispute therefore concerns both the scale of deletion and whether genuine voters were incorrectly removed from the rolls.

The Opposition’s concern is that a process intended to revise voter rolls may remove people who are still eligible to vote. The article reports allegations that 13 crore voters were intentionally deleted wherever the revision took place. If genuine names disappear, affected citizens may be unable to participate in an election.

The key mechanism is simple: electoral rolls determine which names are available for voting. A shifted, deceased, duplicate, or allegedly nonexistent entry may be removed, but an incorrect classification could exclude a real voter. Because large numbers were deleted, Opposition parties fear that mistakes or selective removals could influence the composition of the electorate.

The article says the revision could eliminate genuine voters and shape electoral outcomes. It also reports nationwide protests over alleged irregularities in the process. The Supreme Court upheld the revision’s legality, but political and public concerns remain, particularly as the third phase continues.

In May, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the special intensive revision. This meant the revision itself could continue as a lawful exercise. The ruling did not remove concerns about how names were being examined or deleted during the process.

The Court also drew an important boundary around the Election Commission’s authority. It said that conducting the revision does not mean the Commission can decide whether a person is an Indian citizen. In other words, revising an electoral roll and determining citizenship are not the same power.

That distinction matters because Shah described three crore deleted entries as “Bangladeshi infiltrators.” The article does not report a court finding confirming that description. It says BJP-ruled states nevertheless cited SIR to deny ration cards to some people removed from the rolls, while police sometimes denied passport renewals. The legal and political dispute therefore continues.

The Election Commission’s role includes overseeing electoral rolls and conducting their revision. In this episode, it is the institution implementing the special intensive revision across states and Union Territories. The Supreme Court’s ruling also limits how that role can be understood: revising rolls does not give the Commission power to decide citizenship.

The mechanism is important because the roll is the practical list used to identify eligible voters. The Commission must therefore handle additions, removals, shifted entries, deaths, and duplicates carefully. The article reports concerns about alleged irregularities and says BJP-ruled states cited SIR when denying some removed people ration cards or passport renewals.

An independent election authority helps ensure that roll maintenance is not used to favor a party or alter participation unfairly. The article reports protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and a symbolic “public impeachment” by the INDIA bloc. These events show the continuing dispute over institutional trust.

An electoral roll is the official list of people registered to vote in a particular election area. The article focuses on names being removed from these rolls, but it does not provide a formal definition. In general, the list identifies the people who can participate in an election.

The connection is practical and direct. If an eligible citizen’s name is on the roll, election officials can recognize that person as a voter under the applicable rules. If the name is missing, the person may be unable to vote. That is why removing entries for shifted, deceased, duplicate, or allegedly nonexistent voters can have consequences for real people when classifications are wrong.

In a representative democracy, voting lets citizens help choose representatives. The article reports that Opposition parties fear genuine voters could be excluded and that electoral outcomes could be affected. The SIR controversy therefore concerns not only administrative records, but access to political participation.