Democracy depends not only on the freedom to vote but also on ensuring that every eligible citizen has a fair opportunity to participate. An accurate electoral roll is essential to this process. But accuracy and inclusion must go hand in hand.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is an important exercise in verifying and updating voter information. Its objective is clear: to ensure that eligible citizens are included and that those who are not eligible are not included in the electoral roll. An exercise of this scale requires enormous effort from electoral officials, and their work deserves our sincere appreciation. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and other election officials have to coordinate large operations, visit households, interact with citizens, verify information and work within demanding timelines. Much of this work happens quietly and away from public attention. Their patience, commitment and hard work are essential to the electoral process and deserve our recognition and support.
At the same time, citizens live in very different circumstances. Some are away for work. Some have recently moved. Some may be travelling when an official visits. Others may be hospitalized, elderly, living with disabilities, or simply unaware of what they need to do. Some may have limited literacy or little access to information about the electoral process.
My own experience in Shillong brought this issue home to me.
I am a native of Changki, Nagaland, but Shillong has been my home for more than 18 years. I transferred my Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) from Changki to Shillong and have exercised my electoral rights here since. Both my children were born and brought up in Shillong.
In late June 2026, I moved into new office quarters in another locality. By then, I understand that the Booth Level Officers had already visited the locality for enumeration, before I moved into the quarters. After I moved in, there was no subsequent enumeration visit to my residence.
My work also requires me to travel frequently. Even when I am in Shillong, my official responsibilities are demanding and leave me with limited time, which has to be divided among many competing needs. Since my EPIC still carried my former address, I nevertheless visited the polling booth in my former locality three times to address the matter.
Eventually, I sought the guidance of an officer of the Meghalaya Civil Service whom I know. I explained the situation concerning my wife’s and my EPIC status. She kindly took the matter up and guided us on what needed to be done.
Following her guidance, my wife and I made a fourth visit to the booth, carrying the relevant documents from Meghalaya and Nagaland. Our documents were checked and cross-verified, and our EPIC details were subsequently updated.
I am grateful for the help we received. But the experience left me thinking about something much bigger than my own case.
My wife and I were conscious of the importance of having our names correctly recorded. We were determined to see the matter through. We had the awareness to recognise that something needed to be done, the means to make repeated visits, and, eventually, access to someone who could guide us.
But who has the luxury of visiting a booth four times?
For some people, even one visit can be a considerable undertaking. It may mean taking time away from work, losing a day’s wages, paying for transportation, arranging care for children or dependants, or travelling a considerable distance. For an elderly person, someone with a disability, a person who is ill, or someone with limited literacy, the difficulty may be even greater.
And what happens to the genuine citizen who, unlike me, simply decides not to return after the first difficulty?
That decision may not mean indifference to the right to vote. A person may have gone to the booth once and encountered a long queue. Another visit may have coincided with a closure or an unavoidable work commitment. Someone may have been asked to produce a document they did not know how to obtain. A person may have moved, may be travelling for work, may be hospitalized, or may simply have been away when the BLO came.
Nor can we reasonably expect BLOs to keep returning four or five times to find a particular voter. They have a large number of households to cover and a demanding responsibility to fulfil. A voter not being at home does not necessarily mean that the voter is unwilling to cooperate.
The challenge, therefore, is not to place the entire responsibility on either the BLO or the voter. There needs to be a practical bridge between the two.
There is also a difference between reaching people in closely connected rural communities and reaching people in urban settings. In many rural communities, local familiarity can make it easier to identify households and know who belongs to a particular community. Urban areas present a different challenge. People move frequently, live in rented accommodation or office quarters, work long hours, travel regularly and may have little connection with their immediate neighbours.
This is not to say that rural voters have no difficulties, or that urban voters are necessarily harder to reach. Even local residents can face many genuine reasons why their EPIC details
may not be updated or why they may not be available when an enumeration visit takes place. But urban mobility makes a strong and accessible system particularly important.
I have been fortunate in Shillong. After more than 18 years here, I have become familiar with people and institutions, and that familiarity has helped me know whom to approach. But it will not be the case for everyone. Not everyone knows an officer personally. Not everyone knows which office to approach, what form to fill in, what documents are required or how to follow up on a problem.
A good electoral system should not depend on knowing the right person.
The purpose of verification is not merely to find every voter at home during a particular visit. It is to ensure that eligible citizens are not inadvertently left out while maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll. That requires careful work by election officials, but it also requires that citizens who miss an enumeration visit or encounter difficulty have a clear and practical way to re-enter the process.
This is particularly important for people who have less time, less money, less information or less ability to handle government procedures on their own.
The answer is not to ask BLOs to make endless visits. Nor is it reasonable to expect every citizen to make repeated journeys to polling booths or election offices. What is needed is a workable system of follow-up: clear information, accessible guidance, simple ways to check one’s electoral status, and reasonable avenues for assistance when circumstances prevent a citizen from completing the process at the first opportunity.
The Election Commission’s stated objective of ensuring that no eligible citizen is left out is one that we can all support. The hard work of the electoral machinery deserves our appreciation, and citizens have a responsibility to provide correct information and cooperate with verification.
My own case eventually ended well. I was determined, I sought help, and I was fortunate to find someone who could guide us. I remain grateful to the officer who helped us and to the officials who carefully checked and cross-verified our documents. But not every genuine voter will have the same awareness, time, resources or access.
So, when a genuine voter is not at home, cannot make another visit, does not know whom to approach, or simply cannot keep trying – how do we make sure that voter is not left behind?
Meyu Changkiri
Thursday, October 8, 2026