“An inclusive and grassroots solution to electoral registration and review process”
India’s major electoral reform is a long overdue. Although India has seen periodic electoral reforms those include introduction of EVM in 1990’s, anti defection laws of 2003, introduction of NOTA in 2013, and linking the voter ID (EPIC) to Aadhaar in 2021. Despite being a robust system, we witness accusations of election mismanagement on Election Commission of India (ECI). This must end altogether. The ECIis often praised for its neutrality and logistical skill. Yet, lurking beneath this record is a problem that surfaces before almost every election — allegations of inflated rolls, missing names, and deliberate voter exclusion. What compounds the issue is the current centralised voter registration process. Although ECI conducts special summary revisions and door-to-door verification through Booth Level Officers (BLOs), the process remains largely one-directional. It is time to ask: can we make voter registration and review more transparent, participatory, and accountable? One promising idea is to decentralise it to the booth and Panchayat level — with all political stakeholders at the table — and resolve disputes locally under the authority of the Tehsildar or more so the district election officer.
The ECI announces a period of voter roll revision before an election. BLOs — usually school teachers or government employees — conduct house-to-house surveys or verify online applications. Draft rolls are published, followed by a window for claims and objections. This must be noted that more than 50% of the eligible voters in draft rolls are illiterate — can’t read or write and may not be able to verify themselves their namesin the draft rolls online or offline. More so, even the educated ones give it a miss. This is where the issues may arises and may go undetected. After final corrections, the rolls are frozen until the election.On paper, the process is robust, but still has loopholes, such as.
a). Limited oversight by political stakeholders. Political parties can inspect draft rolls, but their ability to monitor door-to-door verification is minimal. By the time objections are filed, the verification process is already closed.
b). BLOs, despite being government appointees, operate in local environments where political influence, personal relationships, or even fear of reprisal can affect the quality of verification.
c). Disconnection between list preparation and local knowledge. Residents, Panchayat members, and booth workers often know exactly who lives in their area, but their knowledge is not systematically used.
d).Currently, disputes over voter eligibility often require escalation to higher election officers at the district level. This slows the process, delays corrections, and sometimes pushes disputes into the election period itself.These structural gaps provide fertile ground for allegations of mismanagement in registration and review process.
The Grassroots Model: The proposed model rests on three pillars.
a). Every voter list revision should begin with a verification committee at the booth level comprising booth-level workers from all registered political parties contesting in that constituency, the panchayat ward member or urban ward councillor for the area, and the appointed BLO for that booth.
b). In rural areas, this means cross-checking with panchayat household registers; in urban areas, with ward office data and local resident welfare associations. The verification can be conducted in public meetings or open house sessions so the residents can raise objections if any directly on the spot.
c). Any disagreement over inclusion or deletion| whether between parties or between a citizen and the committee — can be referred immediately to the Tehsildar.The Tehsildar shall conduct spot verification, document checks, or even police confirmation if necessary. The Tehsildar’s ruling shall be final at the local level, with only exceptional cases escalated to the district election officer.
“To build a transparent and trusted voter registration system in India, we can involve all political parties at the booth level and use existing Panchayat structures. By empowering the Tehsildar to quickly resolve disputes, this reform would strengthen Indian democracy. This process would ensure that every genuine voter is counted and every fake voter is excluded, making election mismanagement a relic of the past.”
Transparency, Accuracy
a) Local knowledge is central: Booth-level workers and Panchayat members know their residents far better than distant officers. Fake entries — whether for deceased persons or outsiders — can be spotted immediately.
b) Multi-party checks reduce manipulation: When all political sides are present during verification, the possibility of one party engineering the list in its favour diminishes sharply. Each side acts as a watchdog for the other.
c) Faster dispute resolution: Instead of waiting weeks for district hearings, the Tehsildar can settle disputes within days, avoiding last-minute chaos before polling.
d) Public confidence: When citizens see familiar local representatives and officials jointly checking the rolls, the process appears more legitimate and less “controlled from above.” This could reduce post-poll protests and accusations about missing names.
Critics will point out that this model could create its own challenges. Canada involves community enumeration and political party representatives during the revision process. Ghana has public exhibition of voter rolls in villages, where objections are heard by local electoral committees. New Zealand allows local boards to cross-verify enrolments with residents knowledge before finalizing rolls.India’s Panchayati Raj structure provides a ready-made institutional framework to adapt such models.
Implementation Roadmap
Phase 1: Pilot Projects: Select two districts per state for a trial run during the next summary revision period. Measure error rates, dispute resolution speed, and citizen satisfaction compared to control districts using the current process.
Phase 2: Training, Standardization: Train booth-level workers, Panchayat members, and BLOs in verification protocols and dispute documentation. Provide Tehsildars with mobile verification kits to check documents on the spot.
Phase 3: Scale-Up with Oversight: Roll out nationally with annual random audits by ECI observers. Impose penalties for willful misreporting or collusion.
The trust deficit around voter lists is growing. Social media amplifies every allegation of missing or fake voters, often without factual checks. This not only damages the credibility of the ECI but also erodes citizens’ faith in democracy itself. A decentralised, participatory model aligns perfectly with India’s constitutional vision of self-governance. This makes it imperative to close loopholes that allow either administrative error or deliberate manipulation.
Bottom-Line: Elections are not decided only on polling day; they are shaped in the quiet weeks and months when voter rolls are compiled. If that foundational process is opaque, exclusionary, or open to manipulation, the legitimacy of the entire exercise suffers. By involving all political parties at the booth level, anchoring the process in Panchayat structures, and empowering the Tehsildar to resolve disputes quickly, we can build a voter registration and review system that is both transparent and trusted. Such a reform would not merely fix a bureaucratic flaw — it would strengthen the very roots of India’s democracy, ensuring that every genuine voter is counted and every fake voter is kept out.The cry of election mismanagement should have no place in a mature democracy. With political will, administrative innovation, and grassroots participation, we can make sure it becomes a relic of the past.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi
