On Saturday, New Delhi, the Indian capital, was under siege. The Indian government deployed more than 20,000 police and paramilitary personnel, barricaded the city center, and suspended internet access. By evening, more than 7,000 people were detained by the police, including leaders from India’s opposition parties, lawyers, and journalists. Despite the crackdown, thousands turned out in Delhi on Monday to protest with even greater vigor.

The repressive effort sought to deter a planned protest at Jantar Mantar, a traditional protest site in New Delhi. The protest centered on two core demands:  the resignation of India’s chief election commissioner and the rollback of a nationwide process known as Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The chief election commissioner heads the national electoral body and is appointed on the recommendation of a committee headed by the prime minister. The SIR ostensibly seeks to clean up and update the electoral rolls but has removed 130 million Indians from the rolls—more than half the number of Americans eligible to vote in the midterm elections.

The troubles truly began in the summer of 2025. Several Indian states were about to hold elections for their state legislatures. Ahead of those elections, the Election Commission announced an electoral revision in those states, citing the need to “clean up” electoral rolls. Numerous voters would be required to prove that they were citizens and entitled to be on the rolls by producing one or more documents from a select list. Election Commission officials would scrutinize the documents and either accept or reject them.

Civil society groups and political activists promptly challenged the proposed electoral revisions before the Supreme Court of India in June 2025. They questioned the power of the Election Commission to undertake electoral revisions at such a scale. India’s election law does authorize the commission to undertake a revision of electoral rolls in specific electoral constituencies, provided it records its reasons in writing. The petitioners argued that it does not grant the Election Commission overarching power to require voters already on the rolls to prove their eligibility afresh.

The petitioners also argued that Election Commission’s list of acceptable documents was exclusionary and would result in large scale disenfranchisement. In India, access to documents issued by the........

© Time