Invisible actors

Why in the News

An editorial criticises the Election Commission of India for allowing large-scale, allegedly fraudulent Form 7 deletion applications to be filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Form 7 is the prescribed form under electoral roll rules for objecting to another person’s inclusion on the roll or seeking their deletion. Large volumes of such applications, filed in bulk and allegedly by parties with no direct connection to the individual voters concerned, raise the concern that a mechanism meant for genuine, individual objections is instead being used as a tool to strike names off the roll at scale, without the safeguards a genuine objection process would apply.

Why is bulk filing of Form 7 applications a concern?

1. Form 7 was designed for individual, evidence-backed objections: The form allows any registered elector to object to another entry on the roll, but the process assumes each objection is filed on a specific, documented ground by someone with knowledge of that particular voter’s circumstances.
2. Bulk filing bypasses the individual-knowledge assumption: Reports of large batches of Form 7 applications filed together, in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, suggest a coordinated filing exercise rather than genuine, case-by-case objections raised by people with actual knowledge of each voter.
3. No standard operating procedure to screen bulk filings: The Election Commission has not published a standard operating procedure specifying how a Booth Level Officer or Electoral Registration Officer should treat an unusually large batch of objections filed from a single source or in a short window, leaving field-level officials to process each one individually regardless of the pattern.
4. Risk of disenfranchisement without adequate verification: A voter whose name is objected to through a bulk-filed Form 7 may be removed from the roll on a ground that was never actually verified against that specific individual’s circumstances, if the volume of filings overwhelms the verification capacity at the local level.

What safeguard does the editorial call for?

1. A standard operating procedure for anomalous filing patterns: The editorial’s central demand is a documented, uniform procedure specifying how Electoral Registration Officers must treat Form 7 applications filed in unusually large batches or from a common source, rather than processing every filing as an ordinary individual objection.
2. Verification against the objected voter, not just the objector’s paperwork: A functioning safeguard would require direct verification with the individual whose name is objected to before any deletion is finalised, rather than relying solely on the documentation the objecting party submits.

Conclusion

The editorial’s concern is that the Special Intensive Revision, meant to correct genuine errors in the electoral roll, is vulnerable to being used to strike voters off the roll at scale through a bulk-filed, individually-framed objection form that field officials are not equipped to screen. A published standard operating procedure for anomalous Form 7 filing patterns is the specific safeguard the editorial says is missing.

Back2Basics: Form 7

1. The prescribed form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for objecting to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, or seeking the deletion of an entry on stated grounds such as death or shift of residence.
2. Can be filed by any registered elector against another entry on the same roll, not only by the individual whose own entry is in question.
3. Processed by the local Electoral Registration Officer, who is required to give the affected voter an opportunity to be heard before a name is deleted.
4. Became a point of controversy during the 2026 Special Intensive Revision after reports of large-volume, bulk filings in several States.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”