Electoral Integrity and Minority Rights: A Critical Examination of Voter Roll in West Bengal
By Farishta Maqbool
When the state removes 1.7 million Muslim voters from the rolls, and a political leader admits they are “largely anti-BJP,” the election that follows is not a democratic exercise. It is a racial exclusion dressed in administrative language.
In April 2026, an election took place in West Bengal, India. The main purpose of this election was to choose a leader who would receive votes from a large portion of the public. In a democratic state, every citizen has the right to vote for their preferred leader. However, something unusual occurred during the 2026 election in India. The Election Commission of India conducted a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll, resulting in the removal of approximately 9 million voters, meaning that 12% of the state’s electorate was eliminated. A significant number of those removed belonged to the Muslim community. Additionally, out of the 2.7 million pending tribunal cases, 65% involved Muslim voters. It means about 1.7 million Muslim voters were removed from the electoral roll in West Bengal.
This case has followed the same pattern that has been established over the past 15 years. Before that, India’s elections were based on democratic principles and served as an example for other modern states by granting voting rights to citizens based on their citizenship, rather than on status, religion, or other factors.
When India adopted universal adult franchise in 1950, it was a significant step, especially at a time when many modern Western states were still restricting voting rights based on property ownership, gender, and literacy. India provided its citizens, regardless of their social status, whether poor or rich, literate or illiterate, the opportunity to vote from day one. This was a radical move by the Indian government at that time. For the Indian government, being a citizen was enough to qualify for voting.
A significant shift occurred in 2010 when the Election Commission of India began conducting electoral roll purification. The main purpose was to remove duplicate votes and deceased voters. However, this initiative began to evolve into something more complex. In 2018, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) was established by the government to address the issue of illegal migrants in Assam; it inadvertently targeted many Bengali-speaking Muslims who were Indian citizens. While the NRC aimed to remove illegal migrants, the process resulted in the exclusion of over 1.9 million individuals, many of whom could prove their citizenship but became trapped in procedural hurdles.
Similarly, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was established by the Election Commission of India as a tool to help purify the electoral roll by removing duplicate voters. However, in 2026, the SIR removed 9 million voters based on a vague new category called “logical discrepancy,” which led to the exclusion of millions without clear evidence.
Therefore, the pattern is clear from NRC to SIR; targeting of the Muslim community is evident. The government uses “infiltrator” rhetoric to justify deletions, then creates procedural complexities that are nearly impossible for poor and rural populations to solve. This is how the right to vote is taken from them.
International organizations like the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) also highlighted the racial discrimination against Bengali-speaking Muslim communities in January 2026 in India. They formally cited that procedural irregularities and vague definitions lead to misappropriated exclusions from the electoral roll. CERD’s findings establish that what happened in West Bengal is not an isolated administrative error but part of a documented pattern of racial discrimination.
Another important concern is that the SIR not only removed Muslim voters but also altered the political landscape where Muslims could exercise their influence. Before the SIR, Muslim voters had historically helped the TMC win. Muslim-majority districts like Murshidabad and Malda were TMC strongholds. However, when the SIR removed 1.7 million Muslim voters, the BJP formed its first government in West Bengal. In Murshidabad, the TMC dropped from 20 seats in 2021 to just 9 in 2026, and in North 24 Parganas, the TMC fell from 28 seats to 8.
Racism became even clearer when, upon winning the election, BJP leader Adhikari referred to Muslim voters as “Kattarwadi” (fanatic or hardliner). He said: “The Hindu people of Nandigram made me win again. There, the entire Muslim vote went to the TMC. They are Kattarwadi. I will work for the Hindus of Nandigram”. In his statement, he clearly mentioned that he will work for the Hindu community only; also, the purpose of the SIR was not purification at all; it was to remove the Muslim community’s influence from politics. The BJP leader openly announced that the removed Muslims were largely anti-BJP. This shows how the government can use administrative processes for its own interests.
The West Bengal election shows how fragile India’s democracy is. We cannot call an election democratic when it takes place without millions of voters. Universal adult franchise was one of the most radical steps taken by India. However, today this commitment is compromised by administrative decisions about which citizens matter.
The 2026 election held in India was not democratic at all, because democracy does not mean merely whether elections were held, but whether every citizen is counted or not.