The SIR in Bihar faced strong criticism from political parties, leading the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to draw lessons from it before undertaking a nationwide revision. The new exercise, called SIR 2.0, commenced this week, presenting itself as a paperless, people-friendly, and procedurally robust initiative.
With nearly one billion voter entries, a digital approach is not only inevitable but indispensable.The electoral roll is no longer a static, state-wise record but a dynamic national database whose precision directly defines the integrity of India’s elections. However, questions about its credibility have already begun to surface.
This article examines the issue of double or multiple listings of a single voter, exemplified by the recent case of a voter in Bihar whose name appears in both the Bihar and West Bengal rolls. The duplication defeats the core purpose of the SIR and reflects procedural lapses rather than voter fraud. The problem affects countless citizens who relocate and unknowingly remain registered in more than one constituency-a situation the author has personally observed in several similar cases. A hanging sword remains suspended over voters’ heads, unknowingly and unalarmed, mainly due to the Election Commission’s high-handedness and administrative indifference.
Sound Legal Framework, Poor Enforcement
Under the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950, duplicate entries technically constitute a violation, though such lapses may not be intentional. Many law-abiding citizens, simply by shifting residence, inadvertently find themselves in breach of the Act through no fault of their own. The RP Act, 1950, defines the framework for maintaining the integrity of electoral rolls and preventing duplication.
Under Section 22(b), if a voter changes residence within the same constituency, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) should transpose the entry to the appropriate part of the roll. Section 22 concerns the inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. When a voter moves to another constituency, Section 23(2) governs inclusion in the new roll. It mandates that the ERO, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered, shall direct inclusion of the applicant’s name in the new roll. The section further requires that if the applicant is already registered in the roll of another constituency, the concerned ERO must inform the officer of that constituency, who shall then strike off the applicant’s name from that roll. Thus, a double vote exists mostly due to the inaction of electoral officials. In practice, double votes persist largely because electoral officials fail to act with the diligence and coordination required by law.
To ensure the uniqueness of every voter’s registration, Sections 17 and 18 explicitly prohibit multiple registrations-no person may be listed in more than one constituency or more than once in the same constituency. Violations constitute an offence under electoral law. Duplication often occurs when a voter’s name is added at a new place of residence but not simultaneously deleted from the previous one.
In essence, the Act places the primary responsibility on the EROs to ensure that transposition, inclusion, and deletion are carried out accurately, promptly, and simultaneously. This process is crucial in preventing duplicate registration and ensuring the credibility, transparency, and integrity of the national electoral database.
Procedural Flaws in Voter Duplication
The ECI has consolidated the above provisions related to change of residence and correction of voter details in Form 8, used for transposition or correction of entries. A change of address request may fall under four categories: (I) no change in constituency or polling station; (II) no change in constituency but a change in polling station; (III) change in constituency within the same state; and (IV) change in both constituency and state.
The most common causes of double entries occur in Type III and Type IV cases, where a voter either changes constituency within the same state or relocates to another state. The new entry may retain the same EPIC (Electors' Photo Identity Card) number or generate a new one. For example, a recent case in Bihar involved two entries with different EPIC numbers, while the author has observed several instances where both entries shared the same EPIC. In either case, the responsibility for not deleting the earlier entry rests squarely with the concerned Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), whose timely coordination and action are crucial to preventing duplication in the national electoral roll.
Another source of duplication arises when a voter misuses Form 6 for a change of residence, although it is meant for new voter inclusion. As mandated under Section 19 of the RP Act, 1950, the form applies to those who have attained 18 years of age and are ordinarily resident in a constituency. It requires a declaration that the applicant is enrolling for the first time and is not registered elsewhere. However, voters shifting residence often conceal their existing registration, resulting in duplication. Such false declarations constitute a legal violation, with accountability shared by both the voter and the officials responsible for verification.
Technology in Place, Accountability Missing
The backbone of India’s electoral roll is ECINet, a fully digital, nationwide system designed to assign each voter a unique EPIC number, ensuring a single verifiable entry per individual. With records of nearly one billion voters, ECINet can detect duplicates, flag inconsistencies, and enable corrections through authorised verification, maintaining a complete update history for traceability. Its voter search APIs can identify duplicate entries and generate alerts for review and deletion. With such capabilities, there is little justification for the continued existence of duplicate records.
Whether the SIR is paper-based or paperless, the real challenge lies in database accuracy and administrative responsiveness, as detection and deletion in a digital system can be instantaneous. Most duplicate entries arise from the failure to delete older records, whether linked to the same or a different EPIC number. This recurring issue reflects not a technological gap but an administrative lapse rooted in poor coordination and weak accountability within the electoral machinery.
Trust Through Technology
SIR 2.0 must not degenerate into another bureaucratic ritual. The gaps are administrative, not technological. ECINet, already a robust digital system, should be strengthened through Aadhaar integration and updated Standard Operating Procedures. Before rollout, the electoral data must be cleaned, duplicates flagged, and deleted after verification.
With software-led validation, digital audit trails, and real-time corrections, the process can evolve into a trust revolution. The future SIRs may become unnecessary, as electoral rolls remain perpetually accurate, updated, and verifiable. Thus, in Digital India, technology must take charge of enforcing accountability-replacing bureaucratic inertia and complacency with precision, transparency, and efficiency. ECINet must function as a reliable public utility with instant dispute resolution and continuous updates-shifting India from verification-by-ritual to verification-by-design, achieving SIR with Technology and Trust: A Model for the World.
The writer is a Tech-Education Policy Consultant, a former Professor of Computer Science at IIT Kharagpur, IIT Kanpur, BITS Pilani, and JNU, and a former Scientist at DRDO and DST
