The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in October 2025, has become a major point of contention over electoral inclusion and the protection of voting rights. While the ECI maintains that the exercise aims to remove deceased, duplicate, permanently shifted and otherwise ineligible voters, concerns have emerged over the documentation requirements and the risk of eligible voters being excluded.
The enumeration process has raised particular concerns because of the documents voters may be required to produce, including references to earlier revision of rolls which was done in 2002. In case the name of the person is not in the list then one has to produce the evidence of names of father in the 2002 list as the proof of eligibility. Critics have questioned the adequacy of the verification process and the limited time available to submit documents. Many people shifted their residence due to employment or marriage, among other reasons, leaving it very difficult for them to provide documents. These requirements could disproportionately affect vulnerable communities and people with limited access to historical records. These concerns have placed the transparency, accessibility and fairness of the electoral revision process under scrutiny. Media also reported that the decision-making process in Election Commission is centralized and arbitrary.
Throuhout October 2026, protests in New Delhi brought these concerns into the streets, with opposition parties, student groups and civil society actors demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and greater accountability from the ECI. Demonstrators questioned the transparency of the SIR process and raised concerns about the potential exclusion of eligible voters. The ECI and the government have disputed allegations of political manipulation, maintaining that the revision is intended to ensure accurate electoral rolls.
The national capital was turned into fortress wherein trains, flight and local transport was heavily restricted. There was also an internet shutdown in the central Delhi area. Police detentions of demonstrators, including opposition lawmakers and members of the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement, alongside security restrictions and reports of alleged mistreatment, added another dimension to the controversy. On 10 October 2026, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) expressed concern over the mass detention of demonstrators, civil society members, lawyers and journalists in Delhi, urging the authorities to respect the right to peaceful assembly and release anyone arbitrarily detained. The Indian Government rejected the remarks as “misplaced” and “unwarranted interference” in India’s internal affairs.
Even though some protesters were later released, protest continued alongside renewed detentions, restrictions on the main protest site with provided alternatives far from the city centre, and permit denials. On 14 October 2026, prominent Bollywood actor Imran Khan was issued a Leave India Notice under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 over his participation in the 10 October protest. Repression continued also through charges filed against social media users who had posted about the protests.
On 15 October 2026, Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court over the temporary cellular internet shutdown in central Delhi during the 10 October protests, while defending it as necessary for public order. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation also apologised for restricting access at 45 stations on police instructions. By 22 October 2026, several states reported efforts to ease procedural hurdles in the SIR process, including alternative documentation, assistance with notices and drives to enroll eligible voters omitted from electoral rolls. These measures may improve electoral inclusion, while highlighting the continued need for accessible and transparent voter-registration procedures.
Beyond the dispute over electoral-roll revision, the protests highlight concerns about the space available for citizens and civil society actors to challenge electoral processes and demand institutional accountability. The police response therefore raises broader questions about the protection of peaceful assembly, restrictions on internet access and public movement, and the ability of people to express dissent on matters affecting democratic participation.