BLAs bypassed 10-form daily limit using EC portal, data show

Why in the News

Data from Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls show that booth-level agents (BLAs) filed more objections a day than the Election Commission of India (ECI) allows. They used the ECI’s ECINET portal, which has no mechanism to enforce the cap, so the safeguard against bulk deletions exists only on paper.

What is the 10-form cap, and how does the online route escape it?

1. What a Form 7 does: Form 7 lets an elector object to a name on the roll or seek its deletion. It works like a complaint, checked before a name is struck off.
2. Why the cap exists: BLAs, a recognised party’s booth agents, may file in bulk. After the draft roll (the provisional list open to objections) appears, a BLA “shall not submit more than” 10 forms a day.
3. What went wrong: Online, a BLA logs in like any citizen through Aadhaar authentication. The portal has no field to declare BLA status, so the limit never applies.
4. How it surfaced: Form 10 reports, a public list of objections, stay on ECINET for seven days and exposed the pattern.
5. The takeaway: A limit written into guidelines but not into software lets a few people seek mass deletions unchecked.

Who filed the objections, and on what grounds?

1. Repeat filers: Several individuals breached the daily cap. Chitresh Chandoliya, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) BLA and a sitting MP’s son, filed 35 objections in two days.
2. Mostly self-deletions: About four in five Form 7s filed in Delhi that week were electors removing their own names.
3. One ground for all: Every Form 7 the BLA filed in Karol Bagh cited “absent/permanently shifted”. One voter he objected to still lives at his listed address.
4. Shared house numbers: In Patel Nagar’s Part 38, a booth’s section of the roll, one objector challenged 13 names in a day. Houses share numbers, and two brothers marked as shifted still live there.
5. Loose offline checks: An Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), who maintains a constituency’s roll, said offline objectors can enter another person’s name as objector.

Why do disposal and disclosure raise concerns?

1. Deletions decided faster: In one week, EROs decided 519 objections but only 92 Form 6 claims to add names. Inclusion claims were more numerous, so the pace favoured deletions.
2. Due process burden: Each objection needs a notice, a hearing and a speaking order (a written, reasoned decision), so fast disposal raises doubt that each step was followed.
3. Missing disclosure: Guidelines require inclusion, objection and modification forms to be uploaded daily on the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)‘s website. Nearly a month in, they remain unpublished.
4. Extended timeline: The claims and objections deadline moves to 30 October, and the final roll is due on 4 December.

Challenges

1. Software lags rules: ECINET authenticates citizens but cannot identify party agents, so guideline limits fail online.
2. Unverified objectors: Offline forms let one person object in another’s name, weakening accountability for false objections.
3. Burden on voters: Genuine electors must answer notices to keep their names, hurting migrant workers most.
4. Rushed hearings: Rapid disposal risks deletions without a real hearing. Eg. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995).

Way Forward

1. Portal-level cap: The ECI should tag BLA logins on ECINET and block objections beyond the daily limit.
2. Objector verification: EROs should match each objector’s voter ID before admitting a Form 7.
3. Daily publication: The Delhi CEO should upload application data daily, as guidelines require.
4. Field check first: Booth Level Officers (BLOs) should physically verify every “shifted” objection before the hearing.

Conclusion

A safeguard enforced only at the counter is bypassed online, turning objections into a tool for bulk deletions. Whether the ECI fixes its portal and publishes application data before the extended deadline will decide the final roll’s fairness.

Key numbers

1. Applications since the draft roll (Delhi): 1.54 lakh for inclusion, 3,435 for deletion.
2. Form 7s filed in Delhi, week analysed: 1,095.
3. Filers above the daily cap: four individuals.
4. Other bulk filers: 12 objections in Delhi Cantonment and 15 in Tri Nagar, each in one day.

Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision

1. What it is: A time-bound house-to-house enumeration in which BLOs verify every voter entry, unlike the routine annual summary revision.
2. Legal basis: Article 324 gives the ECI control of electoral rolls. Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows a special revision for recorded reasons.
3. Aim: Remove dead, duplicate and shifted voters, and enrol newly eligible citizens.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”