The Unequal Geography of Punjab’s Electoral Roll Revision……Anupreet Singh Tiwana

A uniform verification exercise can impose unequal burdens on electors whose mobility, changing addresses and social circumstances leave a thinner documentary trail.

Punjab’s draft electoral roll, published on August 13 after a Special Intensive Revision (SIR), has become the subject of a familiar dispute. The Election Commission says the exercise is needed to remove the names of the deceased, those who have permanently shifted, and duplicate entries. Its critics fear exclusion on a large scale.

Both concerns are legitimate. The harder question lies between them: can a system organised around a fixed address recognise citizens whose lives are marked by movement?

Consider first what the figures do, and do not, show. Punjab had 2,14,61,043 registered electors on June 9. Enumeration forms were received from 1,93,94,408 of them, or 90.37%. About 20.66 lakh names did not appear in the draft after being classified as deceased, permanently shifted, absent or untraceable, or enrolled more than once.

These are draft-stage omissions, not final determinations of individual ineligibility. Claims and objections may be filed until September 12; the final roll is due on October 12.

A separate group requires equal attention. Approximately 12.8 lakh electors submitted forms and remain in the draft, but could not be matched with the 2003 roll or an earlier intensive-revision record. They may receive notices and undergo further verification.

They must not be added to the 20.66 lakh omitted names: the categories are distinct. Their predicament nevertheless reveals a structural difficulty. Citizens who complied with the exercise must now bridge a gap between their present identity and an administrative archive more than two decades old.

Electoral rolls unquestionably require correction. But accuracy has two dimensions: an ineligible entry must be removed, and an eligible citizen retained. ‘Deceased’ and ‘duplicate’ can ordinarily be established through identifiable evidence.

‘Absent’, ‘untraceable’, ‘shifted’ and ‘unmapped’ require more careful judgment. A locked house records non-contact at a particular moment; a failed match records a break in archival continuity. Neither fact, by itself, establishes that a citizen has lost the right to be registered.

The geography of the exercise indicates where that judgment will be tested most severely. The largest reported numbers of uncollected forms were in Ludhiana, Amritsar, Jalandhar, SAS Nagar and Patiala. Together, they account for about 55% of the State total.

Absolute numbers alone cannot establish disproportionate exclusion because larger electorates normally produce larger totals. But earlier mapping data from Ludhiana sharpen the concern: urban Assembly segments reportedly averaged about 58% mapping, compared with 79% in rural constituencies. Constituency-wise rates are now needed across Punjab.

The 2003 roll belongs to an earlier Punjab. Overseas migration, movement from villages to towns, industrial labour mobility, peri-urban expansion and relocation after marriage have altered the relationship between citizens and recorded addresses. Election officials have themselves cited urban growth, migration, and changes in names and family relationships while explaining mapping difficulties. These are not marginal exceptions to settled life; they are part of Punjab’s contemporary social geography.

The danger is a mobility penalty. A family remaining at an ancestral address is likely to leave an uninterrupted trail across electoral records. A tenant in an informal colony, a factory worker who changes accommodation, a woman whose surname and residence changed after marriage, or an overseas Indian temporarily away from the family home may be harder to match. Residential continuity makes a citizen easier for the state to locate. It does not make that citizen more entitled to political recognition.

The law cautions against equating absence with ineligibility. Section 20(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides that temporary absence does not, by itself, end ordinary residence. Section 20A permits an eligible Indian citizen living abroad, who has not acquired foreign citizenship, to register in the constituency corresponding to the Indian address in the passport.

An empty house cannot reveal whether an elector has permanently relocated, is temporarily absent, is working overseas, or is no longer an Indian citizen. These are materially different legal circumstances.

Punjab’s election authorities have announced repeat visits, intimation slips, special camps, help desks and notices to unmapped electors. Their value will depend on their reach.

A notice that never reaches a migrant household is not effective notice. A hearing available only during working hours may be inaccessible to a daily-wage worker. A mismatch between Punjabi and English spellings should prompt human examination, not an adverse inference from an unsuccessful search.

The next phase must therefore be judged by publicly verifiable outcomes. The Election Commission should publish constituency-wise and category-wise data on draft omissions, notices served, claims received, decisions and restorations. Every figure should be reported as a rate as well as an absolute number. The authorities should also reconcile the approximately 20.66 lakh aggregate with its reported subcategories, which together fall short of that total. Disclosure would help distinguish necessary correction from locally concentrated error.

Every affected elector should be able to learn the precise ground for omission, obtain reasonable assistance, and receive a reasoned decision with information about the statutory appeal under Section 24. Industrial settlements and peri-urban areas require outreach at times working residents can use. Transliteration, changed surnames and address variations need guided human review. These measures do not weaken verification; they make it credible.

Punjab’s electoral roll must change because Punjab has changed. The legitimacy of the SIR will not be measured by the number of names removed from the draft or by competing political claims. It will be measured by whether the correction process can distinguish an ineligible entry from an eligible citizen whom an old record can no longer easily recognise. Electoral integrity requires both a clean roll and a fair route back onto it.

Anupreet Singh Tiwana holds a PhD from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He writes on spatial justice, development and community geographies.

​September 12, 2026