‘Mapping’ them out in the national capital

The word ‘mapping’ did not appear in Phase 1 of the SIR, which was held in Bihar alone. It referred instead to ‘family grouping’: arranging members of the same family sequentially in the electoral roll. Every voter was asked to provide their part and serial number in the 2002-03 roll.

‘Family grouping’ became the lynchpin of SIR/Phase 2, held simultaneously in nine states and three Union Territories. Those born later or not listed in the 2002-03 rolls were asked to provide information on relatives. The emphasis was now on 'mapping' each voter.

In Delhi, part of Phase 3, even this wasn’t enough to secure a place in the draft electoral roll.

Mantasha Afroz, a Delhi University student, is a voter from Okhla. She was born at the same address in Shaheen Bagh where she still lives with her parents and two sisters. Mantasha has been marked ‘permanently shifted’ in the ASDD (Absent-Shifted-Dead-Duplicate) schema, even after she provided her parents’ details. Her family has five members, who have had to deal with three different BLOs. Mantasha’s BLO says her work is done, and it’s now over to “senior Election Commission officials”.

In Patparganj, 24-year-old Kajal’s name was deleted (deemed ‘permanently shifted’). She filled out her SIR form online and voted in the 2025 assembly election. She still has her old voter I-card (EPIC), and provided her mother’s part/serial/EPIC numbers. Her mother’s name is on the draft list, hers isn’t. Both mother and daughter live at the same address. How’s that for ‘family grouping’?

Pushpa Devi, who has lived at the same address in Jagdamba Camp, Greater Kailash, for 40 years, has been declared ‘permanently shifted’. Despite voting in 2025, she was not issued an SIR enumeration form.

Virma Devi, 71, also from Jagdamba Camp and very much alive, has been declared ‘dead’. Poonam, a resident of Yamuna Khadar in Mayur Vihar, was given a form, but her BLO never returned to collect it. Poonam has preserved the form; on the rolls she is marked ‘untraceable’. Photojournalist Sarvesh, 70, is also ‘untraceable’ despite living in the same building for 30 years. Her BLO claims he filled out her form himself!

According to Delhi’s chief electoral officer, the city had 1.45 crore voters before the SIR. The draft list has 97.5 lakh. The ASDD list has 43.2 lakh people in the absent/permanently shifted/other categories — 29.8 per cent of the pre-SIR baseline. Another 2.8 lakh are ‘dead’ and 1.4 lakh ‘duplicate’, grouped under ‘uncollectable enumeration forms’.

As per the Election Commission, the BLOs either did not get the forms back or could not locate the voters. (BLOs have the option of using their app to check the 2002 SIR rolls. With a voter’s old part/serial/EPIC number combination, they can identify where/if the person has already been covered under the SIR, including which state the voter came from, if s/he has moved.)

A press statement issued on 31 August 2026 says all 1.45 crore voters in Delhi (100 per cent) received enumeration forms between 30 June and 17 August. Why were only 67 per cent forms collected, then? Or did voters disappear after receiving their forms?

There’s another complication: voter part numbers changed when the draft list was published. The ASDD list is based on new part numbers, which most voters don’t know. Documents relating to the minutes of BLO-BLA meetings require the old part number; searching for your name on the ASDD list requires the new part number. How are voters expected to navigate this?

The functioning of BLOs has been equally vexing. Okhla resident Adil Khan asked his BLO why the four members of his family, who live together, had been assigned different booths. The BLO replied that Adil’s wife and children had received their voter cards later. If mapping was intended to establish voter identity through ‘family grouping’ and prior electoral records, why is verification of one family being split across multiple BLOs?

Delhi’s SIR was officially announced by the Election Commission on 14 May. Voter mapping, however, had already begun. Jan Ahmed Chauhan, Congress BLA-2 in Okhla, says BLOs visited between January and April, asking for details and documents linked to the 2002 electoral roll. “If a voter was not present or couldn’t meet the BLO and show documents, their name was deleted,” he says.

Booth-level figures illustrate the scale. Pre-SIR, in Okhla’s old part number 172, there were 1,874 voters. Only 936 forms were returned; 827 voters were marked permanently shifted, 69 absent, 13 dead and 28 duplicate. One was placed in the ‘other’ category either because the house had been demolished or the voter refused to sign.

At part number 195 in Haddo Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, there were 1,509 voters pre-SIR. Only 352 forms came back. While none were ‘absent’ or ‘duplicate’, 1,136 were marked ‘shifted’ and 30 marked ‘other’ because their names appeared on electoral rolls elsewhere. If the BLO could establish that 30 voters had registered elsewhere, why was no such information available for the 1,136 ‘shifted’ voters? Where did these voters go?

At J.J. Bela Estate in Vijay Ghat, Chandni Chowk, over 500 residents reportedly filled out enumeration forms — not one appears on the draft list. BLO-BLA minutes show that part number 33 had 729 voters when SIR began. Post-SIR, only one remains. The booth number has changed to 38, with nearby Hanuman temple mahant Kanchan Giri as its sole voter.

Kamal, a local resident, says his grandfather and father have voted there since 1961. Of the 729 voters, 632 are marked ‘shifted’, 42 ‘dead’, 10 ‘duplicate’, one ‘absent’ and 43 ‘other’.

Civil society groups like the Voter Adhikar Manch claim lakhs of names were removed even before the SIR began. The Delhi CEO says pre-SIR mapping involved matching the 2025 roll with the 2002 roll and sending Speed Post notices to voters found to have shifted from their registered addresses, with time given for hearings.

As reported in The Wire, the Voter Adhikar Manch and the Kolkata-based Sabar Institute used Election Commission data to reveal that Delhi’s voter count fell from 1.56 crore to 1.45 crore between 31 January and 30 June. In 68 of 70 constituencies, deletions exceeded the victory margin in the 2025 Assembly election.

When the draft list was published, the ECI did not provide figures for unmapped voters or those due to receive notices. Social activist Anjali Bhardwaj has asked why the Delhi CEO’s website did not publish their names. Media reports suggest 33 lakh people may receive notices: 19.3 lakh voters with anomalies and 13.7 lakh classified as unmapped.

Congress BLA-1 in Okhla, Syed Fauzul Azim, says: “Only the Election Commission and the BLOs know who is unmapped and who is to be served notice. The BLAs have not received any list of unmapped people.”

In Uttar Pradesh, the EC released district-wise lists of unmapped voters; 1.04 crore were identified. Likewise, in Uttarakhand (5.2 lakh). Why, then, has Delhi’s official figure not been released?

The 47.5 lakh people excluded from Delhi’s draft electoral roll will now have to fill out Form 6 to seek re-inclusion. The claims and objections period (31 August to 30 September) is running out. Is a month enough for BLOs to process and verify 47.5 lakh Form 6 applications? Besides, why should those who had already submitted SIR forms now have to submit Form 6? Why was the ECI in such a tearing hurry to remove them?