Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)

Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Uttar Pradesh Navdeep Rinwa responded to Congress leader Gurdeep Singh Sappal regarding the deletion of names from the draft voter list of SIR and assured that only the "initial phase" of SIR has been completed.

He asked him to fill out Form 6 and said it did not matter whether his name was on the draft list. According to the CEO, the only thing that would matter in the end was whether the voters' names were on the final voter list.

He also responded to the second point of Sappal's X post, which stated, "...If the name were removed from the old address and added to the new address, there would be no objection. But the problem is that the name has been removed from both places."

In his X post, he said, "Regarding point number 2 of your post, it must be said that if your name has not even been added to the voter list of the new place, then it is not correct to say that your name should be removed from both places. By entering the address of the house in the place where you have shifted, you can fill out Form 6. There may be other people in a situation similar to yours. The same procedure is expected to be followed by them as well. The initial phase of SIR has only been completed. The SIR result will be the final voter list. It does not matter whether your name appears on the draft voter list. What will matter is whether your name is in the final voter list or not."

#WATCH | Delhi: On his name and that of his family members deleted from draft SIR voter list for UP, Congress leader Gurdeep Singh Sappal says, "The names have been deleted despite the submission of all documents, despite our names being in the 2003 list, despite our names being… pic.twitter.com/4HLRjkJtiL

— ANI (@ANI) January 6, 2026

He further said that there are many other people in a similar situation to the Congress leader, and therefore, the same procedure will be "expected to be followed by them as well."

Congress leader Gurdeep Singh Sappal raised serious concerns over the functioning of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that a large number of voters in Uttar Pradesh, estimated at around '2.17 crore', are facing deletion of their names from voter lists after shifting residence. In a detailed post on X, Sappal said the issue is not limited to isolated complaints but affects nearly 15 per cent of the state's voters.

According to him, voters who shifted from their earlier address have found their names removed from both locations, that is, the old constituency and the new one, rather than being smoothly transferred.

Sappal noted that, earlier, voters could update their addresses on Form 8, but under the current system, there is no provision to migrate those entries. Instead, affected voters are being asked to re-enrol as new voters through Form 6, which in some cases separates or erases their earlier electoral records, which can span 30 to 35 years.

He argued that these historical records are essential because, under the present SIR framework, the Election Commission has treated voters whose names appeared in the 2003 rolls as verified and genuine citizens. "If such long-standing records are broken, genuine voters risk losing proof of continuity," he wrote.

Sappal questioned why the Election Commission did not simply link voter identity to the EPIC number, which, he said, would have made address shifting seamless and avoided deletion of names. He asked why, instead of transferring records, the Commission had opted for direct deletions.

Calling the matter a public-interest issue, Sappal urged the Election Commission to review the process and ensure that voters who have moved are not deprived of their voting history or temporarily disenfranchised by procedural changes.

He posted, "This is a matter of public interest, so please read: 1. The issue of removing the name of a shifted voter from the voter list is not just mine. It concerns 2.17 crore citizens in Uttar Pradesh. 2. If the name were removed from the old address and added to the new address, there would be no objection. However, the name has been removed from both locations. 3. There is no provision in the SIR to shift the name to a new address. 4. Now, by filling out Form 6, one can rejoin as a new voter, but as soon as that's done, the record from the old voter list will be separated.

READ MORE: IUML's Fatima Muzaffar Ahmed is the epitome of Muslim woman leadership

In my own case, the record of the past 35 years will be erased. 5. Why is the record necessary? In this SIR, the Election Commission has automatically considered those whose names appeared on the 2003 list to be genuine voters and citizens. Therefore, the record is essential. 6. The question to the Election Commission is that this matter is connected to nearly 15% of voters. It could be simplified by linking it to the EPIC number. Previously, any voter could update their address by completing Form 8. So, what is the justification for directly deleting names in SIR instead of doing that?"