Ranjan Solomon
DEMOCRACY does not usually collapse with tanks on the streets or constitutions torn apart overnight. More often, it is hollowed out quietly — through paperwork, procedure, and bureaucratic abuse. One of the most dangerous of these silent assaults is voter deletion. Recent events in West Bengal reveal how this works in practice, and why the growing reliance on mass revision exercises and opaque verification mechanisms poses a grave threat to India’s electoral integrity.
In a shocking episode, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) panchayat member attempted to delete 343 living voters from the electoral roll by falsely declaring them dead using Form 7, the statutory application for deletion of names from voter lists. Among those marked “dead” were not anonymous or untraceable individuals, but the family members of a Booth Level Officer (BLO) and a Shiksharatna awardee schoolteacher – a woman whose public life and state-recognised service make her presence unmistakably verifiable. This was not an error. It was an operation.
Understanding Form 7 — and How It Can Be Weaponised
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Form 7 is intended to allow objections to the inclusion of a name on the electoral roll — typically in cases of death, permanent migration, or duplication. Crucially, it is not meant to be used casually or en masse. Each application requires scrutiny, verification, and due process.
Yet in this case, a single political functionary sought to remove hundreds of voters in one sweep, falsely invoking death as the reason. That alone should have triggered immediate red flags within the Election Commission’s machinery. Instead, the attempt proceeded far enough to expose a deeper problem: how easily the system can be accessed, manipulated, and abused when partisan interests converge with institutional laxity.
The question that must be asked — and answered — is simple but unsettling: How did a panchayat member living 12 kilometres away obtain detailed personal data of hundreds of voters, including names, addresses, and polling details? Electoral rolls are not meant to be freely mined by political actors for targeted deletion. Either safeguards failed, or they were bypassed with assistance.
Both possibilities are alarming.
Not Random, Not Neutral
The inclusion of the BLO’s own family members among the “dead” voters decisively rules out clerical mistake. Booth Level Officers are the frontline custodians of electoral rolls. Targeting their families sends a chilling signal — that no one is immune, and that institutional roles offer no protection against partisan interference.
Even more revealing is the deletion attempt involving a Shiksharatna awardee. State honours are public, documented, and widely reported. Declaring such a person dead is not ignorance; it is audacity. It suggests confidence that verification would be weak, delayed, or politically managed.
This is what distinguishes voter deletion scams from ordinary electoral irregularities. They are not about stuffing ballot boxes, but about ensuring that certain citizens never reach the ballot at all.
The Structural Danger of Mass Revision Drives
The episode gains greater significance in the context of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises and large-scale voter roll “clean-ups” increasingly promoted as administrative necessities. While accurate rolls are essential, the manner in which these exercises are conducted matters profoundly.
Mass deletions disproportionately affect, the poor and homeless, migrant workers, minorities, elderly citizens without digital access, women whose documentation may not match marital or residential changes.
When deletion becomes easier than inclusion, the system begins to exclude by default. And when political actors are able to trigger deletions with minimal oversight, the danger multiplies. In theory, the Election Commission insists on door-to-door verification, notice to the voter, and opportunities for appeal. In practice, overstretched BLOs, pressure from local power brokers, and opaque digital processes often mean that names disappear first – explanations come later, if at all.
Electoral Rolls as a Site of Power
Free and fair elections do not begin on polling day. They begin with an honest electoral roll. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to vote, while statutory, is central to democratic citizenship. Arbitrary or malicious deletion amounts to disenfranchisement — a violation of the democratic compact. Yet electoral rolls are increasingly treated as technical datasets rather than political instruments of inclusion. This technocratic framing masks the reality that control over the voter list is control over the electorate itself.
Internationally, voter suppression has taken many forms — from restrictive ID laws in the United States to ethnic exclusion in authoritarian regimes. India’s danger lies in procedural abuse: legal forms misused, digital portals exploited, and verification processes selectively enforced.
Accountability — or the Lack of it
What makes the West Bengal incident particularly troubling is not only the audacity of the attempt, but the uncertainty surrounding consequences. Will criminal proceedings follow for filing false declarations? Will there be an inquiry into data access and internal complicity? Will the Election Commission publicly disclose how many such Form 7 applications have been filed – and by whom – in recent years?
Silence would be complicity and A democracy quietly undermined
The Election Commission of India derives its credibility from public trust. That trust is eroded when political actors appear able to manipulate voter rolls with impunity. Transparency, audit trails, and public disclosure are not optional — they are essential to democratic legitimacy.
Voter deletion scams rarely make headlines because their victims often do not discover the loss of their franchise until it is too late — when their names are missing on polling day. There is no spectacle, no visible violence. Just absence.
But absence, when engineered, is political violence of a different kind. If India is to remain a functioning democracy rather than a managed electoral spectacle, voter rolls must be treated as sacrosanct public goods, not partisan battlegrounds. Every deletion must be justified, documented, verifiable, and contestable. Anything less opens the door to the quiet erasure of citizenship itself.
______________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
