Why in the News?

Maharashtra is set to conduct local body elections in three phases from December 2, following the Supreme Court’s directions. The process has triggered debate and criticism over errors, duplication, and missing names in the electoral rolls. Political parties, especially the Opposition, have raised concerns on the transparency and reliability of the revised voter lists. The SEC has outlined specific steps to address these issues while conducting a large-scale revision of ward-wise rolls.

Key Aspects of the Situation

1. Background & Context

• The Supreme Court directed Maharashtra to complete all local body elections by January 31, 2026.
• Elections will cover: 246 municipal councils, 42 nagar panchayats, 32 of 34 zilla parishads, 336 of 351 panchayat samitis, Municipal corporations in the last phase
• Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) does not maintain a separate voters’ list.
  It relies on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) electoral rolls (under Representation of the People Act, 1950), but rearranges them into local wards.
• Due to delays, first-time voters turning 18 after January 1, 2025 may not find their names included in time for the initial phases, creating concerns about disenfranchisement.

2. What the SEC Can and Cannot Do

A. Powers

• Conduct, supervise, and control local body elections as per constitutional provisions.
• Redraw ward boundaries and bifurcate Assembly voters’ lists to create local voters’ lists.
• Identify:
  • duplicate entries,
  • mismatches,
  • errors in ward allocation,
  • multiple voters at the same address.

B. Limitations

• Cannot add or delete voters’ names itself. Only ECI has this authority.
• Can only mark, verify, and correct ward-wise entries based on the ECI data.
• Cannot change the base electoral roll if its revision cut-off date has already passed.

3. Issues Raised & Types of Objections Allowed

Political parties have flagged concerns such as:

• Opacity in the process
• Double entries
• Voters listed multiple times or in wrong wards
• Voters with zero or incomplete address
• Names of people outside the State
• Alleged illegal/invalid entries

Objections Allowed During Revision Process

Type of Error	Meaning
Name present in Assembly roll but missing in local roll	Common during ward bifurcation
Voter assigned to wrong ward	Boundary or mapping error
Duplicate entries	Same voter appearing twice
Multiple voters at same address	Requires field verification

4. Tools and Techniques Used by the SEC

A. Duplicate Identification Tool

Uses four filters:

1. First name
2. Middle name
3. Last name
4. Gender

The tool marks entries likely to be duplicates. Chief Electoral Officers will verify these on the ground.

B. Field Verification

• Marked entries (double or suspected duplicates) are checked by officers physically.
• This ensures local rolls match the verified Assembly rolls.

C. Undertakings by Voters

• Voters must submit an undertaking at the polling booth declaring they will vote only once.
• These undertakings are stored with marked copies of rolls to prevent multiple voting.

6. Challenges in the Implementation

A. Operational Challenges

• Compressed timeline to complete:
  • publication,
  • verification,
  • corrections.
• Field verification of thousands of entries may be difficult to complete quickly.

B. Data Integrity Issues

• SEC depends on ECI’s list; if base roll has flaws, SEC cannot rectify them.
• First-time voters missing due to old revision date (Jan 1, 2025 cut-off).

C. Coordination Gaps

• Multiple agencies involved: SEC, ECI, local bodies, ward officers.
• Risk of mismatch between Assembly-level and ward-level rolls.

D. Political Sensitivities

• Allegations of manipulation, inclusion of invalid names, bias in ward mapping.
• Opposition claims that the process does not address systemic electoral-roll issues.

Implications for Electoral Governance

• Ensuring fair and updated electoral rolls is essential for the institutional credibility of local elections.
• High urban migration in Maharashtra increases risk of outdated address records.
• Duplicates or missing voters can impact election legitimacy in closely contested municipal regions.
• Reliance on ECI rolls demands better synchronization between national and local revision cycles.

Way Forward

1. Synchronizing Revision Cycles

• Align SEC’s electoral schedule with ECI’s annual intensive revision to prevent outdated base rolls.

2. Digital Integration

• A unified database linking polling stations, ward maps, and voter details.
• GIS-based ward delimitation to reduce mapping errors.

3. Strengthening Field Verification

• Use mobile apps for geo-tagged verification of addresses.
• Deploy additional teams during large-scale revisions.

4. Enhancing Transparency

• Public dashboard showing:
  • number of duplicates found,
  • corrections made,
  • pending objections.
• Publish daily updates during revision windows.

5. Special Drive for First-Time Voters

• Additional enrolment camps at colleges and community centers.
• Quick inclusion mechanism through supplementary lists.

6. Stronger Oversight Mechanism

• Independent observers for urban areas with high dispute potential.
• Random audits of voter lists to ensure fairness.

Conclusion

Maharashtra’s SEC is undertaking a complex electoral-roll revision amidst tight timelines and intense political scrutiny. While it cannot alter the base rolls prepared by the ECI, it is using tools, field checks, and procedural safeguards to correct ward-wise lists, prevent duplication, and ensure single voting. The process highlights broader structural issues in India’s electoral governance—particularly the need for synchronised revision cycles, better data integration, and increased transparency. Strengthening these foundations is crucial to ensure the credibility and fairness of local democratic institutions.

UPSC CSE PYQ

Year	Question
2017	The local self-government system in India has not proved to be an effective instrument of governance. Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.