Summary
In an Indian Express column on 20 October 2026, Jean Drèze and Yogendra Yadav compared final post-SIR electoral rolls with official projections of the adult population. Across nine states covered by the first two phases, they calculate a shortfall of about 11.7% and they estimate about 14 crore eligible adults missing nationally once the third phase is complete.
They were responding to economist Surjit Bhalla. He argued that most deletions were genuinely absent, shifted, dead or duplicate voters, treated a non-registration rate of 8.5% of adults as normal and estimated unfair exclusion at about 70 lakh.
The debate turns on whether unregistered adults are a state failure or a voluntary choice.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Drèze-Yadav column directly answers Bhalla's estimate that only about 70 lakh voters were unfairly excluded. It comes amid wider controversy over the Election Commission's deletion of more than 13.3 crore names during the Special Intensive Revision.
Standard News
If the State Runs Registration, the State Owns the Gap
TAN's position is simple. In India, voter registration is driven by the state, so adults missing from the rolls are first a sign of state failure, not of citizens choosing to stay away. The burden of explaining that gap lies with the state.
Why the Burden Lies With the State Article 326
provides that elections shall be held on the basis of adult suffrage and that every citizen aged 18 or above who is not disqualified is entitled to be registered as a voter. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, through Section 21, places the duty of preparing and revising rolls on electoral registration officers.
The citizen holds the entitlement; the state carries the duty to make it real. That is why registration in India involves house-to-house verification and officials going door to door. In such a system, a large gap between the adult population and the rolls cannot be presumed voluntary.
Drèze and Yadav compared final post-SIR rolls with official population projections. Across nine states they calculate a shortfall of about 11.7%, highest in Gujarat at 17.4% and over 17% in Uttar Pradesh. Extended nationally, they estimate about 14 crore missing voters.
Even if those estimates are off by some margin, a gap of that size in a state-run system requires explanation by the state.
The Strongest Objection Surjit
Bhalla's argument deserves to be taken seriously. Population figures are projections from the 2011 Census, not counts and may overestimate adults because of deaths during Covid or migration abroad. Some people, especially young or mobile adults, genuinely do not register.
Inflated rolls, full of dead or duplicate names, also damage democracy by enabling impersonation. And a gap existed before the SIR: Bhalla notes young-adult under-enrolment equal to 7.5% of the adult population in 2024 and treats 8.5% as a normal shortfall.
On that basis he estimates unfair exclusion at about 70 lakh, a small fraction of critics' figures.
Why the Position Still Holds Accept
Bhalla's benchmark in full and the problem remains. Drèze and Yadav calculate that even with 8.5% treated as normal, about 1.4 crore voters appear to be unfairly excluded in Uttar Pradesh alone, double Bhalla's estimate for nine states combined.
More importantly, the benchmark is not a natural floor. The youth enrolment gap was 5.2% of adults in 2014 and 7.5% in 2024. A gap that grows over a decade measures a worsening system, not stable personal choice. Treating it as normal turns past failure into an accepted standard.
Finally, the uncertainty in the projections is exactly why the burden of proof matters. When estimates are uncertain, someone must bear the risk of error. In a constitutional system built on universal franchise, that risk should not fall on the citizen whose name has vanished.
Clean rolls and complete rolls are both legitimate goals, but a revision that cannot show it achieved the second has not achieved its purpose.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
More than 13.3 crore names were deleted from pre-SIR electoral rolls; the Election Commission classifies them as Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD).
-
Drèze and Yadav use adult population projections from the Technical Group on Population Projections (July 2020).
-
By their calculation, Gujarat has the largest shortfall, at 17.4% and Kerala the smallest, at 2.5%.
-
They estimate Uttar Pradesh's shortfall at about 2.8 crore adults or 17.1%.
-
West Bengal's final revised roll stands at 6.86 crore.
-
Bhalla treats 8.5% of the adult population as a normal rate of voluntary non-registration; Drèze and Yadav note the youth enrolment gap was 5.2% of adults in 2014.
-
On 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the SIR, but directed it to accept documents such as Aadhaar, EPIC and ration cards.
-
Article 326 provides for universal adult suffrage; Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The full constitutional reasoning from Article 326 and Section 21 of the RPA 1950 for placing the burden of proof on the state
Bhalla's case at full strength: projection error, voluntary non-registration, the damage done by inflated rolls and his 8.5% benchmark
The arithmetic that holds even on Bhalla's terms: about 1.4 crore excess exclusions in Uttar Pradesh alone, by Drèze and Yadav's calculation
Why a youth enrolment gap rising from 5.2% to 7.5% is evidence of state failure, not a natural floor
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free