The acknowledgement came in a written response in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, July 30, nearly three months after three UN Special Rapporteurs sent a formal communication to New Delhi. The letter, dated May 1, sought detailed information about exclusions, safeguards for minorities and remedies available to people prevented from voting.
The communication was signed by Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression; and Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
The experts said they had received information concerning the removal of millions of names through the revision led by the Election Commission of India. They highlighted West Bengal, where Assembly elections were held in two phases on April 23 and April 29.
The government’s parliamentary reply marked its first public recognition of the communication. The matter had been raised by Congress member Syed Naseer Hussain, who asked whether UN experts had expressed concern about deletions and whether the government had examined allegations of discrimination.
The UN letter cited claims that about 52 million names had been removed across nine states and three Union territories covered by the second phase of the revision. It said West Bengal was particularly affected, with an estimated 9.1 million names deleted from the register.
Those figures were presented by the experts as allegations based on information received rather than findings independently established by the UN. Electoral authorities have maintained that revisions are intended to include all eligible citizens while removing deceased, duplicated, permanently shifted and otherwise ineligible entries.
The communication alleged that valid voters were excluded despite submitting identification documents. It also claimed that minor differences in names and spellings, a common feature of older public records, had been used against some electors.
Muslims were said to have faced a disproportionate impact. The experts referred to allegations concerning Nandigram, where 95 per cent of deleted voters in one constituency were reportedly Muslim, although the community constituted about a quarter of its electorate.
They expressed concern that the process could have wrongfully excluded Muslims, Bengali-speaking citizens and other minorities because of their perceived association with undocumented migration from Bangladesh. They also questioned political rhetoric linking electoral-roll deletions with the removal of “infiltrators”.
The letter did not prejudge the accuracy of the allegations. It asked the government to examine them and explain whether the revision complied with international obligations protecting political participation, equality and freedom from religious discrimination.
The experts sought the exact number of deleted entries, reasons for removal and the number of objections and appeals filed. They also requested disaggregated information on the religion and ethnicity of excluded voters, or an explanation if such data were unavailable.
Another concern involved the alleged use of an artificial intelligence-driven system to detect irregularities in voter data. The communication warned that automated screening in a high-stakes process could produce errors or bias without sufficient transparency and human oversight.
The Election Commission has argued that electoral-roll revisions are necessary because migration, deaths, duplicate registrations and demographic changes can leave voter lists inaccurate. Its stated objective is to ensure that every eligible citizen is enrolled and that no ineligible person remains registered.
The controversy intensified because the West Bengal exercise was conducted close to the Assembly election. More than 3.4 million appeals were reported to have entered the adjudication system, placing tribunals under pressure to decide cases before polling.
The Supreme Court declined on April 6 to halt the revision. Ten days later, it used its powers under Article 142 to permit voters whose appeals were accepted before specified deadlines to regain their voting rights. The Election Commission was directed to prepare supplementary lists for eligible electors.
People whose appeals remained pending, however, could not vote. The UN experts said the compressed timetable may have deprived eligible citizens of an effective remedy before polling.
(IPA Service)
