When I first came across the letter written by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) to the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, I experienced a sense of both relief and introspection. Relief, because amidst the mounting discomfort around the voter list revision, at least one member of the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had the courage to address the growing anxiety with democratic tact. Introspection, because it reminded me how, in a time when public institutions often appear rigid and political responses either defensive or dismissive, a single, measured intervention can bring clarity to a national concern.
The voter list is not just an administrative ledger; it is the foundation upon which democratic representation stands. The moment we start treating it as a mere bureaucratic formality, we risk undermining the essence of electoral democracy. The recent SIR in Bihar, launched by the ECI ostensibly to clean the rolls of duplicate, deceased, or ineligible voters, has done precisely that — shifted the focus from inclusion to suspicion. In a state already struggling with socio-economic vulnerabilities, the ECI’s decision to initiate a sweeping review sent ripples of concern across civil society and political circles alike.
More than 35 lakh voters have reportedly been flagged for possible deletion. That number is not just a statistic — it represents real people, many of whom come from marginalised, migrant, or minority backgrounds. Entire regions feel the weight of uncertainty: Will their names remain? Will they be asked to prove their belonging again? In this moment of democratic ambiguity, what stood out was the intervention by the TDP, not as an act of rebellion, but as a responsible appeal from within the governing coalition.
Constructive engagement
The TDP did not question the ECI’s authority. It did not allege partisanship. Nor did it retreat into silence to preserve the appearance of alliance unity. Instead, it positioned the SIR not as a battleground but as an opportunity, an occasion to review, reflect, and reform the systems that underpin our elections. In doing so, the TDP remained true to what can be called the spirit of “Alliance Dharma,” not as passive compliance but as active responsibility.
The party’s letter raised several crucial concerns. It rightly questioned why voters whose names already appear in the certified electoral rolls should have to re-establish their eligibility without any specific, verifiable objection. In a functioning democracy, prior inclusion should carry a presumption of validity. This is not just political common sense — it is a legal precedent, affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1991 Lal Babu Hussein vs Electoral Registration Officer judgment. The TDP’s invocation of this case shows its intent was not merely procedural but principled.
Also, I absolutely agree that any voter revision exercise must be especially sensitive to migrant workers, tribal populations, the elderly, and homeless citizens. These are the groups who often fall through the cracks of documentation, not because of fraud or deception, but due to systemic neglect. There must be a substantive roadmap for reform. We can use AI-based tools to flag duplication or detect deceased voters, and encourage Aadhaar-linked verification mechanisms with robust data privacy protections. There is also a need for annual third-party audits of the electoral roll, ideally under the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most importantly, electoral deletions should not occur without prior notice, a reasoned order, and an opportunity for response. In doing so, we will not only defend the dignity of voters and their rights but also provide a blueprint for institutional transparency.
In an environment where ruling parties often avoid internal dissent for fear of appearing divided, the TDP chose the harder path. It demonstrated that alliance loyalty does not mean silence, and that governance is enriched, not weakened, by respectful critique from within. In fact, one could argue that it is precisely because the TDP is part of the NDA that its concerns deserve greater attention. If a partner within the ruling coalition is raising red flags, shouldn’t the lead party pause and listen?
The BJP’s near silence is troubling
As the primary force in the NDA, it has a responsibility not only to lead with electoral strength but also to safeguard democratic fairness. The fact that a partner had to step up and voice what millions were silently fearing indicates a deeper disconnect between power and participation. If voter lists are being weaponised — whether intentionally or inadvertently — to exclude citizens under the guise of reform, then the damage is not limited to Bihar. It is a national question, one that demands answers at the highest levels.
We should also be clear: This controversy is not about rejecting reform. Electoral rolls do require periodic revision. Fraudulent entries must be addressed. But the method matters. A reform that bypasses transparency, burdens the most vulnerable, and fails to consult key stakeholders risks turning a constitutional exercise into a democratic setback. What the TDP has done is remind us that reforms must be participatory, not punitive; corrective, not coercive. There’s a broader lesson in all this.
Political parties, especially those in government, often find it difficult to question the system they are part of. But democracy demands a different kind of maturity. It asks political actors to balance loyalty with integrity, and governance with humility.
As a teacher of political science, I often tell my students that the health of a democracy is measured not just by how power is gained, but by how institutions respond to power’s overreach. The electoral roll may seem technical. But when it begins to decide who counts and who doesn’t, it becomes the frontline of democratic justice. It is now up to the EC to respond with clarity, and for the ruling party to recognise that silence is not neutrality.
In a democracy, silence — especially from those in power — often amounts to complicity. If the voter list is to be more than a list of names, if it is to reflect the will and dignity of the people, then it must be built with care, consultation, and constitutional integrity. Let us learn from the TDP — not just how to govern, but how to stand up for the governed.
The writer is Professor of Political Science, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad
The party’s letter raised several crucial concerns. It rightly questioned why voters whose names already appear in the certified electoral rolls should have to re-establish their eligibility without any specific, verifiable objection. 
Share
