Gandhi’s 1924 Indictment of Voter Deletion Before Election and Restoration After the Polls Echo in the Wake of SIR Generated Disenfranchisement Process

IT is indeed fascinating to note that Gandhiji’s thought and life practices are of enduring relevance offering invaluable  lessons to address contemporary challenges. That he lived in a different era doesn’t make his insights dated. For nearly every predicament we face to today, somewhere, something he said or did would offer a deeper understanding of the issue and propose a sound solution to it. We need to just look for it in his writings and lived life.

Today, India is in a political turmoil. Troubling questions are raised sharply about franchise, integrity of our electoral process, accountability and credibility of those in charge of conducting elections, legitimacy of the mandates secured by political parties and the governments they established. Recent revelations by investigative journalists about the goings on in our Election Commission of India, especially in the context of the implementation of Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls brought the propriety of several decisions of the executive as well as the judiciary to centre stage of our political discourse. 

In July 1924, Gandhiji received a letter from one Jamaluddin Mukhmoor. The letter and Gandhiji’s response to it were published in Young India’s edition dated 17 July 1924. (See Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 24, Pages 407-408) He told Gandhiji that the local government official had deleted his name from the municipal electoral roll. The reason cited for the deletion was his conviction for six months under a particular section of Criminal Procedure Code. 

He appealed against the deletion. The administration did not respond to his appeal for a month. In the meantime, elections to the local municipal body were announced and the polling date was fixed. Well in time before the date of polling he sent a reminder to the competent authority. In the reminder he pleaded that the decision to remove his name from the electoral roll be kept in abeyance until his appeal was finally decided upon. 

But the administration did not heed to his plea and carried on with polling without allowing him to exercise his franchise. That is, without the final adjudication on his appeal the polling went ahead.  Nearly eight months after the polling, he was informed that his name was restored to the electoral roll. The communication also mentioned that the appeal was decided in his favour on the day of the polling itself but could not be communicated in time to enable him to exercise “the privilege of voting”.

To recap the chronology: 

Before the municipal elections to be held in November 1923, Mukhnoor’s vote was deleted from the electoral roll.

Immediately, Mukhnoor appealed to the authorities against the deletion.

Authorities kept silent for a month.

Election date was announced, meanwhile.

He sent a reminder.

He pleaded in the reminder that the decision to delete his vote be put on hold until his appeal against it was decided. 

Authorities did not respond and went ahead with polling, without deciding on his appeal against the deletion.

Seven months after the elections Mukhnoor received a communication from the authorities informing him that the appeal was decided in his favour and his name was restored to the electoral roll.

The communication also said that the decision was taken on 26 November 1923 (the day of the election).

It also said that the decision could not be conveyed to him in time for him to exercise his right to vote.

Gandhiji responded to Mukhnoor’s letter. He also published the letter as well as his reply in the 17 July 1924 issue of Young India. The response was short, crisp and immensely instructive for us in our present predicament. 

The first line of the response is hard hitting. Gandhiji said, “This is like sending a reprieve after hanging.” He went on to add that the incident furnished him with “an additional cause for non-cooperation.” Gandhiji’s response underlined his conviction that every vote mattered, and that “one vote is enough to turn the scales on momentous occasions.”

It is clear that to Gandhiji every vote mattered. And his response to the incident clearly suggested that no one should be deprived of their franchise without first pronouncing them ineligible. In other words, no one should be denied their voting right without properly disposing their appeal against the deletion of their vote. The Mukhnoor incident and Gandhiji’s response to it also point to the principle that those whose appeals were undecided could not be deprived of their voting rights.

During the 2026 Special Intensive Revision of electoral roll carried out in West Bengal, nearly 93 lakh voters were deleted from the electoral roll for one reason or the other. Some names were restored after submission of papers and their scrutiny at the administrative level. Of those who were denied their franchise at that level, as many as 28 lakh people, appealed against their deletion. Just like Mukhnoor did. Before their appeals were even heard, the ECI went ahead and conducted the election to the state Legislative Assembly. About 28 lakh people were denied their right to vote without being pronounced (rightly or even wrongly) ineligible. Their appeals were not even heard, leave alone adjudicated. 

The conduct of the ECI in West Bengal is no different from the conduct of the authorities under the colonial rule. The ECI did to millions of voters in West Bengal exactly what the administrators under the British Raj did to Mukhnoor. The very few who were adjudicated after the polling, nearly 93% were adjudged as eligible to be back on the electoral roll, exactly as it happened to Mukhnoor. To repeat Gandhiji’s words, these voters in West Bengal received their ‘reprieve after hanging’, just like Mukhnoor. 

The callousness of the ECI and, unfortunately, even of the higher judiciary, comes across as bizarre and shocking when one reads Gandhiji’s response to denial of voting right as far back as 1924. The way SIR is implemented today shows how far our administration and even our judiciary had moved away from the elementary principles of natural justice. As it did to Gandhiji, this should give us all an additional reason for a peaceful non-cooperation movement, a mass Satyagraha. 

India is on the verge of losing the core values enshrined in its constitution and the principles espoused by its tallest leader. They should be rescued and restored to our collective life. Gandhiji not only gave us values but also showed us the way to uphold them and protect them when they are in danger.