The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Uttar Pradesh voter list has thrown up startling numbers. The draft electoral roll, released on Monday, shows that nearly 3 crore voters are missing compared to the previous list — a development that is likely to trigger political debate and voter anxiety ahead of future elections.

Addressing a press conference in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinva said the new draft roll contains 12,55,56,025 voters, down from 15,44,30,092 voters in the existing list.

In simple terms, 18.7 per cent of voters from the old list do not feature in the new draft roll.

The exercise during SIR

According to election officials, the SIR process involved door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), collection of enumeration forms, and categorization of voters based on their current status.

Out of the total electorate:

81.3 per cent voters submitted their enumeration forms
2.89 crore names were dropped from the draft list

The deletions fall into four broad categories:

Break-up of deleted voters

1. Deceased voters: 46.23 lakh names (2.99%) were removed after being verified as dead.
2. Shifted voters: The biggest chunk — 2.17 crore voters (14.04%) — were marked as having shifted residence and could not be traced at their registered address.
3. Duplicate entries: 25.47 lakh names (1.65%) were deleted as they appeared more than once in the rolls.

Election officials maintain that these corrections are essential to clean up voter rolls and eliminate ghost or duplicate voters.

However, the sheer scale of “shifted” voters has raised eyebrows.

Top districts with maximum Voter deletions

1. Lucknow – 12,00,138 voters removed
2. Prayagraj – 11,56,305 voters removed
3. Kanpur Nagar – 9,02,148 voters removed

Other major districts with high deletions include:

1. Agra: 8,36,943
2. Ghaziabad: 8,18,139
3. Meerut: 6,65,635
4. Gorakhpur: 6,45,625

Officials admit that in several urban districts, more than one-fifth of the electorate was marked “uncollectable” due to people moving houses, changing cities for jobs, or living at temporary addresses.

Border districts also show concern

Apart from cities, border and migration-prone districts such as Bahraich, Shravasti, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar and Maharajganj reported a large number of voters marked absent or untraceable.

These districts often see seasonal migration, cross-border movement, and weak documentation, making voter verification challenging.

How to check if your name is deleted

Uttar Pradesh Election Commission Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Navdeep Rinva urged citizens to check their status immediately.

Voters can visit:

ceouttarpradesh.nic.in
voters.eci.gov.in

Names are listed under the ASDDR category:

1. A – Absent
2. S – Shifted
3. D – Dead
4. D – Duplicate
5. R – Refused enumeration

The SIR 2026 draft roll is available for download on the ECI website.

What to do if your name is missing

If a voter’s name does not appear in the draft list:

Form-6: For inclusion of name (new or deleted voters)
Form-6A: Overseas voters
Form-7: Objections or removal
Form-8: Corrections in details

Forms can be submitted through:

1. Booth Level Officers (BLOs)
2. Voter Registration Centres at tehsil offices
3. ECINET mobile app
4. voters.eci.gov.in

Key dates to remember

Claims & objections period: January 6 – February 6, 2026
Disposal of claims: Till February 27, 2026
Final voter list publication: March 6, 2026

Election officials insist that no genuine voter will be left out if they file claims on time. But with nearly 3 crore names missing in the draft, the coming weeks will be crucial — not just for voters, but for the credibility of the electoral process itself.

In a sharp and unusually candid verdict, the Madras High Court has allowed the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop Thiruparankundram Hill, firmly rejecting the Tamil Nadu government’s claim that the ritual would disturb public peace.

The Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that it was “ridiculous and hard to believe” that a once-a-year religious ritual, performed by temple representatives on temple land, could threaten law and order—unless such disturbance was “sponsored by the State itself to achieve a political agenda.”

The Court’s words were not casual. They were a direct response to the State administration’s repeated attempts to block the ritual, citing vague and unsubstantiated fears of communal tension due to the presence of a nearby dargah.

What the Court Ordered

Disposing of a batch of writ appeals, the Bench directed that:

1. The Temple Devasthanam shall light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon during the Tamil month of Karthigai.
2. Only a limited team of 50 temple representatives may access the site.
3. Public entry will remain restricted, and
4. The District Collector shall coordinate the event, with safeguards imposed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to protect the monument.

The Court made it clear that administrative convenience or speculative fears cannot override constitutionally protected religious practices.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy arose after a single-judge Bench directed the temple authorities to light the Deepam at the stone pillar on the hill, a practice
claimed to be part of long-standing tradition.

The State government challenged the order, arguing that:

• The ritual violated Agama Shastra,
• It was a newly invented custom, and
• It posed a serious law and order risk due to the proximity of the Suji Saint dargah.

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department also echoed these concerns, warning that allowing the ritual could “create disharmony.”

Court’s Findings: Law Over Fear

Madras HC Madurai Bench Verdict – Court rejects law and order fears, allows controlled lamp lighting at Thiruparankundram hill

The High Court rejected these arguments one by one.

It held that lighting the Karthigai Deepam is a deeply rooted religious and cultural practice, followed across Tamil Nadu and neighbouring regions from time immemorial. Denying such a practice, the Court said, directly impacts Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression), and Article 29(1) (right to conserve culture).

On the State’s law and order argument, the Court was blunt. It termed the apprehension an “imaginary ghost”, created more for administrative convenience than public safety.

“Projecting the ritual as a threat to peace is either an exposure of the State’s incapacity to maintain law and order or its hesitation to foster communal harmony,” the Bench noted.

A Larger Constitutional Question

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment raises a deeper question: Can a secular State selectively suppress Hindu religious practices under the pretext of public order, while failing to produce any concrete evidence of risk?

The Court answered this decisively in the negative.

It reminded the administration that neutral governance does not mean suspicion towards one faith, and that secularism under the Constitution demands equal respect—not selective restraint.

The Bench also rejected claims that the Deepathoon belonged to the dargah, noting that historical records, including earlier judicial findings, confirmed the land as temple property. The Waqf Board, the Court held, had no locus in the matter.

Verdict with a Message

By allowing the ritual with clear safeguards, the Court struck a careful balance—protecting religious freedom while ensuring public order.

But its strongest message was reserved for the State.

• Fear cannot be manufactured.
• Law and order cannot be hypothetical.
• And governance cannot be driven by political optics at the cost of constitutional rights.

As per court order, the number of participants in the festival has been restricted to fifty with no animal sacrifice, and the official respondents shall strictly enforce the above directions.

The Karthigai Deepam will now be lit at Thiruparankundram—not because of sentiment, but because the law demands it.

Case Title: The Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai v. Rama.Ravikumar and Ors.
[W.A(MD) Nos.3188, 3189, 3204, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3225, 3226, 3227, 3229, 3230, 3231, 3232 of 2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Niranjan S. Kumar for H. Velavadhas
For the Respondents: R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General a/w M. Muthumanikam, Government Advocate; Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General a/w S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, S. Vanchinathan; Chandrasekara.