Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has raised fresh questions over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He focused his latest criticism on the Bela Estate voter list in Delhi.
Gandhi visited Bela Estate near the Yamuna on September 28. He met residents and heard their concerns about missing names in the electoral roll. He later shared a video of his visit and a phone conversation with a local Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).
Gandhi claimed that 728 people currently live in Bela Estate. However, he said only one name remained on the voter list after the SIR exercise. According to his claim, officials removed the other 727 names.
The allegation has added another layer to the ongoing political dispute over the voter-roll revision exercise.
What happened to the Bela Estate voters?
The controversy around Bela Estate started earlier this month. The polling part covering the settlement had 729 registered voters before the SIR process. When authorities published the draft electoral roll on August 31, only one name appeared.
This meant that 728 of the 729 voters from that polling part did not appear in the draft roll. Reports identified the polling part as Part No. 38, JJ Bela Estate-Vijay Ghat, under the Chandni Chowk Assembly constituency.
Gandhi’s latest statement refers to 728 residents whom he says currently live in the settlement. He argued that 727 of those residents lost their names from the voter list.
The difference between the 729 voters in the earlier polling record and the 728 residents cited by Gandhi comes from the way the figures refer to the electoral roll and the current residents.
Gandhi questions removal of voter names
Gandhi said the affected residents have lived in the area for decades. He also said many of them voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi Assembly election.
According to Gandhi, authorities demolished their homes in 2023. However, he said the residents did not leave Bela Estate. Instead, they continued to live in the same broad locality.
He questioned why the demolition of their homes should affect their voting rights. Gandhi also referred to the provision for registering homeless voters with “House Number 0”.
In his video, Gandhi spoke to the local SDM about the missing names. He sought an explanation for the large-scale exclusion from the draft roll.
He described the incident as an example of what he considers a wider problem with the SIR process.
Residents dispute their removal from the rolls
Residents have also questioned the classification of their electoral status.
Earlier reports said many residents completed the enumeration process during SIR. They said Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited the area, distributed forms and collected the completed documents.
Despite that process, hundreds of names did not appear in the draft electoral roll.
Residents have disputed the suggestion that they shifted away from Bela Estate. They said they moved only within the same locality after authorities demolished their homes.
The issue has therefore raised questions about how election officials determine a voter’s “ordinary residence” when people lose their homes but continue living in the same area.
Election officials explain the voter deletions
Election officials have offered an administrative explanation for the missing names.
According to reports, the authorities reviewed the previous electoral records for the polling station. Many voter addresses appeared simply as “Agriculture”, while only a small number of entries contained specific house numbers.
Officials also pointed to the demolition of residential structures in the area. They said the changes affected the addresses recorded in the electoral roll. As a result, officials treated many voters as having shifted from their earlier recorded addresses.
The explanation has not ended the controversy. Residents maintain that they continue to live in the area, while critics have questioned whether authorities properly verified their current residence before excluding their names.
SIR and the wider Election Commission controversy
The Bela Estate dispute comes amid a broader political battle over the Election Commission’s SIR exercise.
The Commission has undertaken a large-scale verification of electoral rolls across several parts of India. Opposition parties have raised concerns about the exclusion of voters from draft rolls and the procedures used to verify electoral eligibility.
The Election Commission, however, has defended the process and said officials must follow the prescribed rules while updating electoral records. The Commission has also taken steps to review aspects of the voter-roll updating system amid the wider controversy.
The Commission’s position is important in the Bela Estate case because exclusion from a draft roll does not necessarily mean permanent removal from the electoral register.
Voters can seek inclusion in the draft roll
The claims-and-objections process gives eligible voters an opportunity to challenge their exclusion.
People whose names do not appear in the draft electoral roll can submit the required forms and documents to seek inclusion. Reports have said that residents of Bela Estate have also been pursuing this route.
This process will play an important role in determining which affected residents qualify for inclusion in the final electoral roll.
For the residents, the issue goes beyond the appearance of a name on a document. Voting rights depend on accurate electoral records, particularly for people living in vulnerable or informal settlements.
Why the Bela Estate case matters
The Bela Estate voter-list dispute highlights a difficult administrative question. Electoral authorities must maintain accurate records while also accounting for people who change addresses, lose homes or live without conventional house numbers.
The case also demonstrates the political sensitivity surrounding the SIR process. Gandhi has used the incident to intensify his criticism of the Election Commission. The Commission and election officials, meanwhile, have pointed to changes in addresses and residential structures as factors behind the exclusions.
At this stage, Gandhi’s claim that 727 of 728 residents lost their names remains an allegation about the SIR process. The administrative explanation points to address changes and the demolition of homes. The claims-and-objections process will provide an opportunity for affected residents to establish their eligibility for inclusion.
The final outcome of the Bela Estate voter list dispute could therefore receive continued attention as Delhi authorities process objections and prepare the final electoral roll.