الف نیوز شمارہ نمبر : 340/تاریخ: 11 ربیع الاول 1448ھ/24 ستمبر 2026ء/جمعرات

اداریہ

سّید اکبر زاہد

انڈین ایکسپریس کی تحقیق نے اس بحث میں ایک اور اہم پہلو شامل کیا ہے۔ الیکشن کمشنروں سکھبیر سنگھ سندھو اور وویک جوشی نے فارم 6 میں تبدیلی، انتخابی فہرستوں کے مرکزی نظام پر اختیار اور مغربی بنگال میں ووٹروں کے اخراج کے خلاف دائر اپیلوں کے طریقۂ کار پر اعتراضات اٹھائے۔ دوسری طرف الیکشن کمیشن کے ذرائع کا مؤقف ہے کہ خصوصی نظرِ ثانی سمیت تمام فیصلے تینوں ارکان کی منظوری سے کیے گئے۔

اس اختلاف کو دور کرنے کے لیے متعلقہ تحریری اعتراضات، فیصلوں کی منظوری کا ریکارڈ اور ووٹروں کے اخراج کی وجوہات سامنے آنا ضروری ہیں۔

مغربی بنگال کے سمشیر گنج کی مثال اس مسئلے کی سنگینی واضح کرتی ہے۔ دی وائر کے مطابق وہاں 80 ہزار سے زیادہ افراد کی اپیلیں زیرِ التوا تھیں، جبکہ انتخاب میں فتح کا فرق محض 7,587 ووٹ تھا۔ ایسی صورت میں اپیل کا حق کاغذ پر موجود ہونا کافی نہیں؛ اس کا بروقت اور مؤثر ہونا بھی ضروری ہے۔

انتخابی فہرست کی درستی انتظامیہ کی ذمہ داری ہے، لیکن اہل شہری کے ووٹ کا تحفظ بھی اسی ذمہ داری کا حصہ ہے۔ اگر کسی شخص کا نام غلطی سے حذف ہو جائے اور انتخابات گزرنے کے بعد اس کی اپیل منظور ہو، تو اس کا چھوٹا ہوا ووٹ واپس نہیں آ سکتا۔

اس لیے اس معاملے کی غیر جانب دارانہ جانچ، حلقہ وار اعداد و شمار کی اشاعت اور متاثرہ ووٹروں کی بروقت داد رسی بنیادی اہمیت رکھتے ہیں۔

جمہوریت میں صرف یہ جاننا کافی نہیں کہ کس نے کتنے ووٹ حاصل کیے۔ یہ جاننا بھی ضروری ہے کہ کتنے اہل شہری اپنا ووٹ ڈالنے سے محروم رہ گئے، کیوں محروم رہے اور ان کے حق کی حفاظت کے لیے کیا اقدامات کیے گئے۔

کیونکہ انتخابی انصاف کا آغاز ووٹوں کی گنتی سے نہیں، ہر اہل شہری کو ووٹ ڈالنے کا موقع فراہم کرنے سے ہوتا ہے۔

When Voters Disappear From the Rolls, Who Will Defend Electoral Justice?

Alif News | Special Analysis | September 23, 2026

The latest investigation by The Indian Express has brought a deeply troubling question to the centre of India’s electoral debate: What happens to democracy when millions of eligible citizens disappear from the electoral rolls shortly before an election?

According to the investigation, more than 13 crore names were excluded from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the Special Intensive Revision. Even more significantly, two of the three Election Commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—reportedly raised formal objections at least 14 times over various aspects of the process during the past ten months.

The issue, therefore, cannot simply be dismissed as an administrative exercise involving the correction of electoral rolls.

The fundamental question is this:

Can an eligible citizen be deprived of the right to vote merely because of a documentary discrepancy or an administrative error, particularly when the correction or appeal process does not provide an effective opportunity before the election?

There is another dimension that deserves serious examination.

The Wire’s analysis of West Bengal’s electoral data found a disproportionately high impact on Muslim voters in several constituencies. Its analysis estimated that Muslims constituted about 70.2% of the voters removed in the state, while in 49 constituencies where the number of removed voters exceeded the winning margin, the estimated share of Muslim voters among those removed was about 85.4%.

These figures raise an important question about whether the exercise affected some communities disproportionately.

At the same time, journalistic responsibility requires an important distinction: the available data may demonstrate the scale and distribution of voter deletions, but they do not, by themselves, prove that every deleted voter would have voted for a particular political party or that the election result was necessarily determined by those deletions. Establishing such a conclusion would require constituency-level evidence about the political preferences and restored or excluded voters.

But democracy does not require us to wait for the final political consequence before asking whether the process itself was fair.

The right to vote belongs to the citizen—not to a political party, not to an election official and not to the government of the day.

If a citizen is eligible to vote, the burden of ensuring the accuracy of the electoral roll cannot simply be shifted onto that citizen at the last moment. The reasons for deletion, the evidence relied upon, the notice issued to the voter, the opportunity for a hearing and the outcome of every appeal should be open to public scrutiny.

The revelations concerning the Election Commission make this demand even more important.

If two Election Commissioners themselves raised repeated objections concerning changes to Form 6, access to the electoral database and the procedure through which deletion appeals were filed, the public deserves to know exactly what those objections were, how they were addressed and who authorised the disputed decisions.

The Election Commission has maintained that decisions concerning the SIR were taken with the approval of all three members. That position, too, deserves to be examined alongside the documentary objections reported by The Indian Express.

The answer cannot be political denial on one side or political assertion on the other.

It must come from documents, law, transparent data and an independent examination of the process.

The West Bengal experience makes the urgency particularly clear. The Wire reported that in several constituencies the number of deleted voters exceeded the winning margin. In Samserganj, for example, more than 80,000 appeals were reportedly pending while the winning margin was only 7,587 votes.

In such circumstances, the right to appeal cannot remain merely a right written on paper.

An appeal decided after an election cannot restore the vote that a citizen was prevented from casting on polling day.

This is why the question before India is larger than the fortunes of any individual political party.

It is about whether an eligible citizen can enter an election as a voter with the same confidence with which the Constitution recognises that right.

Electoral-roll revision is an administrative responsibility. But protecting the voting rights of eligible citizens is an equally important part of that responsibility.

A democracy is not judged only by how votes are counted.

It is also judged by who was allowed to vote, who was excluded, why they were excluded, and whether they were given a meaningful opportunity to have their names restored before the election.

Because electoral justice does not begin with the counting of votes.

It begins with ensuring that every eligible citizen is allowed to cast one.