Introduction
In October 2025, the Election Commission of India (ECI) launched a major cleanup drive called the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in 12 states and union territories, covering around 51 crore (510 million) voters. This is the first big door-to-door voter check since the early 2000s, aimed at fixing old errors, removing duplicate or invalid names, updating for people who moved or passed away, and making the lists accurate before the 2026 state elections. The main rule, called “legacy linkage”, requires voters to connect their name or a close family member’s (like parent or grandparent) to the old voter lists from 2002–2005 (available online at voters.eci.gov.in).
If the link is found, things are easy; if not, people must submit extra papers, attend hearings, and risk notices. Though the goal is to make voter lists cleaner and more reliable, forcing links to 20+ year-old lists causes many problems—legal, technical, population changes, and unfair burdens—especially for young voters, migrants, women, and poorer or marginalised groups, who may wrongly lose their voting rights. This could even go against Article 326 of the Constitution, which guarantees every adult citizen the right to vote without unnecessary obstacles. This article explains these major flaws in simple words, based on real ground reports, matching rates, and updates as of December 2025.
Major Loopholes and Deficiencies
- Very Old Lists and Big Changes in Population
The 2002–2005 voter lists are more than 20 years old. They were made before huge changes in India’s population happened.
Anyone who turned 18 after around 2005 (that’s hundreds of millions of young people today) cannot find their own name in those old lists.
People who registered as voters after 2005, and India’s 400–600 million internal migrants (people who moved within the country), also cannot link directly.
This puts young voters and people who move for work at a big disadvantage.
It forces extra checks and paperwork on voters who were properly added to the list earlier and are genuine.
- Old Lists Were Incomplete and Unfair from the Start
The 2002–2005 voter lists often missed many people, especially migrant workers, urban poor, nomadic tribes, and marginalised communities.
This happened because back then, there were not enough staff, poor planning, and little effort to reach out to these groups.
Now, forcing everyone to link to these same incomplete old lists continues the same unfairness.
It wrongly marks genuine voters as “unmatched” just because they were left out earlier through no fault of their own.
- No Modern Ways to Identify People
The old 2002–2005 voter lists were made before Aadhaar cards, standard Voter ID (EPIC) numbers, and fingerprints became common.
So, matching names today depends only on simple details like name, rough age, family relations, and address.
Even tiny differences in these details can cause mistakes and “no match” results.
There are no unique identifiers (like Aadhaar number) to correctly confirm it is the same person, making the process full of errors.
- Different Ways of Writing Names
In India, the same name can be written in many ways because of regional languages and spelling differences (for example, Md., Mohd., or full Mohammad/Mohammed/Muhammad).
People also use short forms or abbreviations.
Many women change their surname after marriage.
These small differences in the old 2002–2005 voter lists cause the computer or officers to say “no match” even when it is the same person.
This wrongly marks real voters as “unmatched”, and it affects women and people with common name variations more than others.
- Wrong or Guessed Ages and Birth Dates
In the old 2002–2005 voter lists, many people’s ages were just rough guesses or not properly checked. This was common for those who did not have birth certificates, especially poor, rural, or elderly voters.
Now, even a small difference in age (like 1–2 years) can cause a “no match” during legacy linkage.
This creates big problems for elderly, rural, and poor voters, who often have no documents to prove their exact birth date. They end up marked as “unmatched” and have to go through extra steps to stay on the voter list.
- Obsolete Addresses
In the old 2002–2005 voter lists, addresses were often vague—like using nearby landmarks (e.g., “near the big temple”) instead of proper street names or numbers.
Over the years, many areas have changed: streets renamed, new buildings built, constituencies redrawn, and cities expanded.
These old addresses no longer match reality, making it hard to link them to today’s locations.
Migrants who have legally moved to a new place (even within India) face big problems, as their current address cannot connect to the old entries, creating barriers that are almost impossible to overcome.
- Manual Errors and Digitisation Flaws
The old 2002–2005 voter lists were written by hand and later turned into digital files. This process created many mistakes, such as wrong spellings, missing names, duplicate entries, and inconsistent details.
Many reports and complaints show big differences between the original paper lists and the online portal (voters.eci.gov.in). For example, names that are clearly printed in the old paper copies are missing online, or there are scanning errors, typing mistakes, or PDFs that cannot be searched properly.
Because of this, even voters who can show proof from the real paper lists are marked as “unmatched”. This forces them into extra steps—like submitting more documents and attending hearings—creating unfair trouble for genuine voters.
- Gender Disparities in Historical Listing
In the old 2002–2005 voter lists, women were usually listed as “wife of” or “daughter of” some male family member, instead of in their own full name.
After marriage, many women move to a new place or change their surname. Sometimes, their old entries were even deleted from the list.
This makes it much harder for women to find a matching link in the legacy rolls now. As a result, more women than men are marked as “unmatched” in the 2025 revision, putting them at greater risk of extra checks or trouble.
- No Equivalence to Citizenship Proof
Being on the old 2002–2005 voter list only proves that a person was registered as a voter back then. It does not prove that they are an Indian citizen.
If someone’s name or family link is missing from those old lists, it should not mean they are not eligible to vote or that their citizenship is doubtful. Voter lists are different from official citizenship records (like the National Register of Citizens or NRC).
Mixing up these two things is wrong and can break the rules in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This could lead to unfair treatment of real Indian citizens.
- Regional Variations in Legacy Quality
The quality of voter lists from 2002–2005 was not the same everywhere. Some states and areas had better and more accurate records than others, depending on how well the work was done back then.
Now, applying the same “legacy linkage” rule to everyone across India is unfair. It creates unequal problems: places with lots of people moving in (like big cities and urban areas) have much higher rates of mismatches, putting more genuine voters there at risk of extra checks or trouble.
- Reported High Non-Match Rates
Early reports from the 2025 Special Intensive Revision show many voters cannot link to the old 2002–2005 lists. For example, in Kerala, only about 68% of current voters could be matched, meaning around 32% may be marked as “unmatched” just because of this legacy check.
Reports from the field say that computer-based matching tools are very strict. Even small differences—like a slight change in spelling or age—cause a “no match”. This is flagging millions of genuine voters across states, forcing them to submit extra documents and attend hearings.
- Procedural Burdens and Exclusion Risks
Voters who cannot link to the old 2002–2005 lists get official notices. They have very little time to respond, and they must prove their eligibility with documents and by attending hearings.
This puts the full responsibility on the voters to show they are genuine, even if they have been on the list for many years and were considered valid until now.
Although the Election Commission has extended deadlines in some states (most house-to-house checks finished or got extra time till mid or late December 2025), there are not enough staff and resources everywhere. This raises the risk that many real voters’ names could be removed from the list automatically, without proper checking.
- Potential Conflict with Statutory Framework
The Election Commission has powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to revise voter lists.
But there is no clear rule in the law that directly says they must force everyone to prove a “legacy link” to old lists in a big nationwide exercise like this.
This new rule can weaken the regular updates done every year since 2005. It also questions names that were legally added earlier and were considered valid until now. This shift treats properly enrolled voters as doubtful, which feels unfair.
- Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups
Poor, illiterate, elderly, minority, orphan, mentally ill, transgender, sex worker, and migrant voters face big problems. They find it hard to search names online, get old documents, or attend hearings.
People who got Indian citizenship after 2005 (like some refugees) cannot link to the old 2002–2005 lists at all, because their names were not there back then. This puts them at higher risk of trouble or losing their voting rights.
- Reversal of Post-2005 Practices
After 2005, the Election Commission updated voter lists every year through simple “summary revisions”. These updates added new voters step by step without going back to check against very old lists.
Now, in the 2025 Special Intensive Revision, forcing everyone to link to the 20+ year-old 2002–2005 lists suddenly questions names that were added legally over the years. This treats properly enrolled voters as if their registration might be doubtful, which is unfair.
- Portal vs. Physical Roll Discrepancies
Many people are complaining that names clearly shown in the old printed voter lists from 2002–2005 are missing or cannot be found when searching on the ECI’s online portal (voters.eci.gov.in). This happens because of problems in turning old paper lists into digital files – like incomplete copying, scanning mistakes, typing errors, or PDFs that are hard to search. As a result, the online site is not fully trustworthy as the main tool for checking legacy links. This can wrongly mark real voters as “unmatched,” forcing them to submit extra papers, go to hearings, and risk unfair delays or removal from the voter list.
Grounds for Challenging SIR in Court
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: The SIR risks mass disenfranchisement, breaching Article 326 (universal adult suffrage), Article 14 (equality before law), and Article 21 (right to fair procedure and livelihood, as voting is linked to democratic rights).
- Arbitrary and Excessive Exercise of Power: Mandating legacy linkage on a large scale lacks clear statutory support in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, making it unreasonable and excessive.
- No Jurisdiction to Inquire into Citizenship: The ECI cannot treat non-linkage as proof of doubtful citizenship; voter rolls are separate from citizenship records (like NRC), violating Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950.
- Procedural Unfairness: Short deadlines, heavy burden of proof on voters, inadequate resources, and risk of mechanical deletions deny natural justice and fair hearing.
- Disproportionate Impact and Discrimination: The process unfairly affects vulnerable groups (youth, migrants, women, orphan, transgender person, poor, minorities), creating indirect discrimination.
- Reversal of Presumptive Validity: Questioning legally added names from post-2005 revisions undermines continuous updates and treats valid voters as doubtful.
- Technical Flaws Leading to Errors: Outdated rolls, digitisation mistakes, and strict automated matching cause wrongful flagging of genuine voters.
- Bad Timing or Mala Fide Intent: Critics argue it targets specific communities or states ahead of elections, raising questions of bias (as alleged in some petitions).
Conclusion
As the SIR enumeration phase concludes (with draft rolls publishing from mid-to-late December 2025 and finals in February 2026), reliance on flawed 2002–2005 rolls as a mandatory benchmark remains problematic. While the ECI has introduced mitigations—multiple BLO visits, online submissions, extensions, and appeals—the core linkage requirement risks avoidable disenfranchisement amid reported mismatches and digitisation gaps.
For greater equity, legacy linkage should serve as optional supporting evidence, prioritising modern identifiers (e.g., Aadhaar for identity, not citizenship) and broader documents. Enhanced outreach to vulnerable groups, fair hearings, and strict adherence to constitutional suffrage principles would better balance purity with inclusiveness, safeguarding democracy without undue voter burdens. Ongoing Supreme Court scrutiny underscores the need for transparent, proportionate reforms.
