Azo Wetsah
Dimapur
India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is meant to be a reset button for democracy: a house-to-house verification drive that removes duplicate, deceased, shifted, or otherwise ineligible entries while ensuring every eligible citizen remains on the rolls. In Nagaland, however, the exercise has acquired particular urgency because the state has long faced allegations of multiple enrolments—some voters reportedly registered in three or four places—making SIR both a necessary clean-up and a potential source of exclusion if applied rigidly.
What SIR is meant to do?
The Election Commission of India has ordered SIR in 16 states and three union territories, including Nagaland, with 1 October 2026 as the qualifying date. In Nagaland, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) conducted house-to-house enumeration from 16 August to 14 September, the draft roll was published on 20 September, and claims and objections could be filed until 20 October; the final roll is scheduled for publication on 22 November 2026.
The official rationale is straightforward: verify records, remove deceased and permanently shifted electors, correct errors, and retain a duplicate registration at only one polling station. Nagaland’s Chief Electoral Officer reported 5,059 electors—or 0.37% of the state’s rolls—as enrolled at multiple places, and stated that such names would be retained at only one location.
The Promise: Cleaner Rolls, Stronger Democracy
At its best, SIR addresses a real democratic defect. Duplicate and ghost entries weaken the principle of “one person, one vote,” create room for impersonation, and distort planning for polling stations, personnel, and security.
Nagaland election officials have framed the exercise in exactly these terms. Chümoukedima’s ADC and Electoral Registration Officer, Lemlila Sangtam, said the exercise seeks to ensure that “every eligible citizen is accurately registered as a voter while removing duplicate, deceased and incorrectly entered names,” adding: “A Clean Election is only possible with a Clean Electoral Roll.”
The state’s stated guiding principle is equally clear: “No eligible citizen is left out; no ineligible person is included.”
In Zunheboto, SIR Observer Asangla Imti urged political parties and officials to work together for “clean, accurate and error-free electoral rolls,” stressing that an accurate roll is fundamental to free and fair elections and asking stakeholders to correct discrepancies rather than engage in “mutual blame.”
The Danger: When Verification Becomes Exclusion
The risk arises when the process becomes so documentation-heavy, hurried, or poorly communicated that genuine voters—especially migrants, the elderly, the poor, and people in remote areas—are treated as “untraceable” and struck off. That concern is not hypothetical in Nagaland.
The Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee has alleged discrepancies involving 1,57,752 voter entries, saying the state had 13,57,208 voters while records available to the Election Department accounted for 11,99,456. NPCC president and Lok Sabha MP S. Supongmeren Jamir said the gap included untraceable voters, permanent migration, deceased voters, duplicates, and other categories, and that further house-to-house verification was underway to determine whether removals were valid.
Congress leader Pranav Shagotra cited district-level figures: 7,900 entries in Mokokchung, 11,513 in Zunheboto, 6,547 in Kiphire, 3,325 in Longleng, and 9,032 in Tuensang categorised as untraceable or deleted. He warned that roll discrepancies could affect outcomes “particularly in smaller states where victory margins were often narrow.”
Banna Gupta, the AICC observer, accepted the need for verification but voiced the central caution: voter verification is necessary to remove duplicates and update records of deceased or shifted voters, yet the process “risked excluding eligible voters in some parts of the country.”
Nagaland’s Multiple-Registration Problem
Nagaland’s case is distinctive because the issue is not merely administrative hygiene. Reports and political claims have repeatedly pointed to voters enrolled in more than one constituency or district—sometimes described as three or four registrations.
The CEO’s own SIR disclosure confirms that multiple enrolment is a recognised category, with 5,059 duplicate entries identified.
SIR is therefore especially important in Nagaland: it can prevent a person from voting twice by retaining only one registration. But the same mechanism can harm a genuine voter if officials mark an absent resident as untraceable without adequate follow-up, or if a voter with legitimate ties to more than one area is not properly guided through the correction and claims process. The Congress has sought exactly this scrutiny. Its leaders said the party would examine whether deletions and classifications were justified, deploy observers across districts, and submit findings to the AICC.
Ground-Level Constraints in Nagaland
Nagaland’s terrain, connectivity gaps, and thin administrative staffing make a flawless SIR harder to execute. In Meluri, political representatives raised network-connectivity problems in parts of the 20-Meluri Assembly Constituency, while NPF Meluri president Riepetho pointed to an “acute shortage of staff” in the District Election Office and inadequate equipment.
These are not minor complaints. If BLOs cannot reliably reach households, upload records, or process claims in time, the burden shifts to voters—precisely the people least equipped to navigate appeals.
Peren’s Electoral Roll Observer, Sotsula, emphasised “accuracy, transparency and integrity,” directed officials to carefully verify records, and reminded parties to remain alert to claims-and-objections deadlines. That emphasis is welcome, but deadlines matter only if citizens know about them and can actually access the process.
What Must Happen Now?
For SIR to strengthen rather than shrink democracy in Nagaland, authorities should: Publish district-wise and polling-station-wise lists of proposed deletions, with clear reasons. Ensure every marked “untraceable” voter receives notice through BLO visits, village authorities, churches, civil society bodies, and local media.
Keep help desks open beyond office hours in rural and remote areas, with assisted Form 6 filing for inclusion claims.
Allow adequate time and simple evidence standards for genuine voters to prove residence or correct errors. Make BLO and BLA oversight public, so political parties can flag wrongful deletions before the final roll is published.
Audit duplicate-removal decisions to ensure a voter is retained at the appropriate, genuine place of ordinary residence.
NPCC working president Khriedi Theunuo has urged eligible voters to ensure their names are included, citing an Election Office communication of 12 October that no eligible voter should be left out. That assurance must now be matched by visible, verifiable protection for voters at risk of deletion.
The Bottom Line
SIR is not inherently anti-voter; in Nagaland, where multiple registrations have been a persistent concern, it may be indispensable. But a clean roll cannot be achieved by treating absence, poverty, migration, or missing paperwork as proof of ineligibility.
The real test is whether Nagaland’s SIR delivers both halves of its promise: no ineligible person included, and no eligible citizen left out. If the state removes ghosts without removing citizens, SIR will strengthen faith in elections; if it uses rigidity and documentation barriers to cut off genuine voters, it will do the opposite.
