Uttarakhand’s Final Voter List Is Out: What the SIR Numbers Mean Before the 2027 Election

Uttarakhand now has a new electoral roll ahead of the 2027 Assembly election.

The final electoral roll following the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, was published on 3 October 2026. It contains 71,58,949 electors across the state. That is 8,01,813 fewer than the 79,60,762 electors recorded when the SIR exercise began on 8 June.

The numbers are large enough to attract political attention. They also require careful reading.

The most important point is that a reduction in the number of registered electors does not automatically tell us which political party will benefit or lose. It does not measure political support. It does not tell us how people will vote. And it should not be treated as an election forecast.

Instead, the new electoral roll tells us something more basic and more important. It establishes the electorate that election authorities currently recognise for Uttarakhand, while also opening another phase of work to identify eligible people who may have been left out.

So what do the changes in Uttarakhand’s electoral roll actually tell us, and what questions remain after the SIR exercise?

What Is SIR and Why Was It Conducted?

The Special Intensive Revision is a more detailed exercise than the routine updating of electoral rolls.

The Election Commission describes the basic objective of SIR in simple terms: every eligible citizen should be included in the electoral roll, while ineligible entries should not remain on it. The Commission has linked the exercise to the need to maintain accurate electoral rolls and remove entries relating to people who are dead, permanently shifted or otherwise ineligible.

During SIR, Booth Level Officers, or BLOs, play an important role in field verification. Political parties can also appoint Booth Level Agents to participate in the process.

The process involves enumeration, preparation of a draft electoral roll, claims and objections, verification and finally publication of the revised roll.

In Uttarakhand, the SIR began on 8 June 2026, with 1 July 2026 as the qualifying date. The draft electoral roll was published on 14 July. The original timetable was subsequently extended, with the final roll eventually published on 3 October.

The claims and objections period ran from 14 July to 13 August, followed by disposal of those cases up to 28 September.

This distinction matters because the electoral roll did not simply move from the June figure directly to the final figure. There were several stages between them.

Uttarakhand’s Electoral Roll: Before and After SIR

The numbers provide the clearest picture of what happened.

Electors when SIR began on 8 June 79,60,762

Draft roll published on 14 July| 71,33,785

Final roll published on 3 October| 71,58,949

Change from pre SIR roll to final roll| Minus 8,01,813

Change from draft to final roll| Plus 25,164

New electors added after draft| 1,29,872

Names deleted after draft| 1,04,708

The figures come from the final press note issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttarakhand.

There is an important distinction between the 8.02 lakh net decline and the 9.31 lakh figure that has also appeared in reporting.

According to the Chief Electoral Officer's office, 9,31,685 names from the pre SIR roll did not appear in the final roll. That figure includes people who were already absent from the draft roll as well as the 1,04,708 names removed after the draft during the claims and objections process. At the same time, 1,29,872 eligible electors were added after the draft. The additions reduced the overall net decline to 8,01,813.

This is why saying simply that “9.31 lakh voters were deleted” would be misleading.

The more accurate description is that 9,31,685 electors from the pre SIR roll did not appear in the final roll, while 1,04,708 names were deleted after the draft roll was published.

That difference is not a technical detail. It changes how the numbers should be understood.

Why Did the Number of Electors Change?

The draft roll process identified 8,26,977 electors who did not appear in the draft and were categorised by the election machinery under the broad ASDD classification, referring to absent, shifted, dead and duplicate categories.

The purpose of such categorisation is to identify entries that require verification.

There can be several legitimate reasons for an electoral roll to shrink.

A person may have died.

A person may have permanently moved to another place.

A voter may have been registered more than once.

An entry may no longer correspond to an eligible elector.

An address may have changed.

Some records may require further verification because the voter could not be located or the information available to election officials did not match the existing entry.

The important point is that a name disappearing from an electoral roll does not automatically mean that an eligible citizen has been permanently deprived of the right to vote.

At the same time, the opposite assumption would also be wrong.

If an eligible voter is wrongly left out, that is a serious democratic problem. The accuracy of an electoral roll depends on achieving both objectives at the same time: removing genuinely ineligible or duplicate entries while protecting eligible citizens from wrongful exclusion.

That is why the claims and objections process matters.

What Happened During Claims and Objections?

The figures from the claims and objections period provide an important second layer to the story.

The election office received 1,46,511 Form 6 applications seeking inclusion. Of these, 1,29,872 were accepted and 16,639 were rejected.

On the deletion side, the election office recorded 96,704 Form 7 applications. Of these, 7,522 were accepted while 89,182 were rejected.

The final roll nevertheless records 1,04,708 names deleted after the draft. The election office explained that 97,186 electors were subsequently marked ineligible, which, together with the 7,522 accepted Form 7 deletions, accounts for the 1,04,708 deletions after the draft.

There were also around 24 lakh voters who received notices relating to discrepancies during the revision process.

This tells us something important about the final number.

The final roll was not simply a list produced by mechanically deleting everyone who did not appear during the enumeration stage. Claims, objections, applications and verification altered the draft.

In fact, the final roll contains 25,164 more electors than the draft roll.

That is one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the process continued after publication of the draft.

The District Level Picture

The district figures show that the changes were not uniform across Uttarakhand.

The final roll contains 71,58,949 electors. There are 37,37,701 male electors, 34,21,036 female electors and 212 third gender electors. The state has 12,543 polling stations. There are 72,656 electors in the 18 to 19 age group and 1,22,892 electors aged above 80.

Haridwar has the largest electorate, with 12,45,458 electors, followed by Dehradun with 11,94,797.

Among the hill districts, Tehri Garhwal has 4,66,638 electors, Chamoli has 2,76,007 and Rudraprayag has 1,82,436.

The constituency level data also shows that the claims and objections process varied considerably.

For example, the Dehradun district had 36,042 claims admitted and 32,050 objections admitted across its constituencies. Haridwar had 22,444 claims admitted and 23,205 objections admitted. Udham Singh Nagar recorded 19,541 claims and 28,183 objections.

These differences should not automatically be interpreted politically.

Urban districts have larger populations and greater population movement. The plains also experience more migration into and out of urban and industrial areas. Hill districts face their own patterns of migration, including movement towards towns and outside the state.

Therefore, a larger number of deletions or objections in a district does not by itself establish political manipulation.

It does, however, make district level transparency important.

The Political Controversy

The SIR exercise has become politically contentious.

Congress has questioned the scale of the reduction and alleged that genuine voters may have been excluded. The party has also raised concerns about the use of Form 7 and has challenged the official baseline used to calculate the reduction.

Congress leaders have cited an earlier voter figure of around 85 lakh and therefore calculated a decline of nearly 14 lakh to the final figure of 71.58 lakh.

The Chief Electoral Officer's office disputes that calculation. The official SIR baseline is 79,60,762 electors as of 8 June, when the exercise began. On that basis, the final decline is 8,01,813.

These are two different calculations based on different starting points.

That distinction should be made clearly rather than allowing two different numbers to be presented as if they describe the same thing.

Congress has also alleged that some Form 7 applications were filed without the knowledge of the voters concerned. Such allegations require individual verification. They should not automatically be treated as proof of widespread wrongful deletion.

At the same time, complaints of this kind should not simply be dismissed without examination.

The democratic response to a disputed electoral roll should be verification.

Were the applications genuine?

Were the voters actually ineligible?

Were notices properly served?

Were objections heard?

Were eligible voters restored when evidence supported their inclusion?

These are more useful questions than simply asking which party's narrative sounds more convincing.

The Election Commission’s Position

The Election Commission's stated position is that SIR is intended to ensure that eligible citizens are included while ineligible entries are removed.

In Uttarakhand, the election machinery used enumeration, draft publication, claims and objections, verification and final publication.

The process also involved political parties through Booth Level Agents.

The final roll itself shows that corrections continued after the draft.

The Commission has now gone further.

Following publication of the final roll, Booth Level Officers have been directed to compare the current roll with the pre SIR roll and identify people who were previously registered but are now missing. BLOs have been instructed to visit those electors at home and facilitate their enrolment through Form 6 wherever they are eligible.

This is significant because it acknowledges that the post SIR process still requires attention.

Special camps and help desks are also being planned for groups including workers, people living in labour colonies, homeless people and marginalised communities.

Recognised political parties will also receive lists during the process, giving them another opportunity to identify eligible voters who may have been left out.

What Happens If Your Name Is Missing?

For ordinary voters, this is perhaps the most important part of the entire SIR story.

If an eligible citizen cannot find their name in the final electoral roll, they should not assume that the matter is permanently closed.

The Chief Electoral Officer's office has specifically stated that people whose names could not be included in the final roll can apply through Form 6. Applications can be made online through the ECINET system or offline through the Booth Level Officer.

The Election Commission's current voter services also provide Form 6 for new registration, Form 7 for deletion or objection and Form 8 for shifting residence, correction of entries and replacement of an EPIC.

A voter should first check the current electoral roll and confirm whether the name is present.

If it is missing and the person is eligible, Form 6 is the relevant route for inclusion.

If an existing entry contains an incorrect address or other details, Form 8 is used for the relevant correction or shifting process.

If someone believes an ineligible name has been wrongly included, Form 7 provides the mechanism for raising an objection or seeking deletion.

The practical message is simple: check first, then use the appropriate official process rather than relying on political claims or social media messages.

The CEO's office has also announced a special post SIR exercise in which BLOs will identify people who were present on the pre SIR roll but are missing from the current roll. They will conduct house visits and assist eligible people with Form 6.

Does SIR Change the 2027 Political Equation?

It changes the electoral administration landscape, but it does not by itself reveal the political equation.

The revised roll matters because political parties now have a new electorate to organise around. Candidate teams will work with updated booth data. Campaigns will have to reach the current electorate. Constituency level planning will use the revised roll.

But the number of electors is not the same as the number of supporters of a political party.

A voter deleted because they died cannot be described as a voter lost by a particular party.

A person who permanently moved to another state cannot automatically be assigned a political preference.

A newly registered voter cannot automatically be classified as a supporter of one party.

That is why the electoral roll should not be turned into an indirect opinion poll.

The real significance is administrative.

The 2027 election will eventually be conducted using an electoral roll, and the credibility of that roll will be important for all political parties and voters.

Migration and the Uttarakhand Electoral Roll

This is where SIR connects directly with one of the central themes of the Road to Uttarakhand 2027 series.

Migration.

Uttarakhand's geography creates a complicated relationship between residence and electoral registration.

A person may move from a village in Pauri to Dehradun.

Another may move from Almora to Haldwani.

Someone else may move outside Uttarakhand for employment but retain strong connections with their village.

There are also seasonal workers, students and people who maintain links with more than one location.

Migration does not automatically mean that a person should disappear from the electoral roll.

Electoral registration has specific legal and administrative rules concerning ordinary residence and shifting of registration. The important question is whether the roll accurately reflects where eligible citizens are entitled to be registered.

This makes migration an administrative challenge as well as a social and economic one.

If hill villages lose population while towns grow, electoral rolls will naturally change over time.

But authorities also need to ensure that people who move within the state understand how to update their registration and that those who remain eligible are not accidentally removed.

The post SIR house to house verification exercise is therefore particularly relevant.

The Bigger Democratic Question

Uttarakhand's experience raises a question that extends far beyond one state.

What makes an electoral roll credible?

There are two objectives that must exist together.

The first is preventing duplicate, deceased, shifted or otherwise ineligible entries from remaining on the roll.

The second is protecting every eligible citizen from wrongful exclusion.

Neither objective should be treated as optional.

An electoral roll containing large numbers of duplicate or ineligible entries creates problems for election administration.

An electoral roll that wrongly excludes eligible citizens creates an equally serious democratic concern.

That is why the claims and objections mechanism is so important.

The final roll should not be treated as the end of accountability. Electoral rolls are updated continuously, and the Election Commission's own post SIR exercise in Uttarakhand shows that authorities are still looking for eligible people who may have been left out.

What Should Happen Before 2027?

The period before the 2027 election provides time to strengthen the electoral roll further.

First, voter verification should remain accessible.

Second, citizens should be able to check their names without unnecessary difficulty.

Third, remote hill communities should receive adequate information about registration and correction procedures.

Fourth, migrants and people who have changed residence should receive clear guidance about updating their electoral details.

Fifth, special attention should be given to vulnerable groups, including homeless people, workers and people living in temporary settlements.

Sixth, election authorities should continue publishing clear information about additions, deletions, claims and objections.

And finally, political parties should encourage voters to verify their names rather than turning the process into a source of misinformation.

The objective should not be to produce a voter list that satisfies one political party.

It should be to produce a voter list that is accurate, transparent and inclusive.

The Voter List Is Bigger Than the Election

Uttarakhand's final electoral roll is now part of the political landscape ahead of 2027.

The headline number is 71,58,949 electors.

The state had 79,60,762 electors when SIR began.

The draft contained 71,33,785 names.

After claims and objections, 1,29,872 electors were added and 1,04,708 names were removed, leaving a final electorate 25,164 higher than the draft.

The final roll is therefore not simply a story about deletions.

It is a story about verification, migration, population movement, claims, objections, corrections and the continuing responsibility of election authorities to maintain an accurate electoral roll.

The political controversy will continue. Congress has questioned the scale and methodology of the changes. The election authorities have defended the process and are now conducting a further exercise to identify eligible people who may have been left out.

Both the controversy and the official response deserve scrutiny.

But the most important person in this debate is neither BJP nor Congress.

It is the voter.

A citizen should be able to check whether their name is on the roll, understand the reason if it is missing and have access to a fair mechanism for correction or inclusion.

The 2027 election will eventually be fought over jobs, migration, development, governance, identity, infrastructure, leadership and many other issues.

But before any of those questions are decided at the ballot box, there is a more basic democratic requirement.

The voter must first be on the list.

“Before Uttarakhand votes in 2027, the first question is not who will win the election. It is whether every eligible voter has a fair opportunity to participate in it.”