Latest: Delhi public audit finds 100+ voters wrongly marked absent, shifted or dead in two Okhla booths
The Election Commission has directed 17 states and Union Territories to carry out a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls with 1 January 2027 as the qualifying date, and will give recognised parties readable versions of the rolls at draft and final stages. Congress's Jairam Ramesh has demanded the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and suspension of the SIR, while an EC functionary called the revision an annual exercise under election law. Problems with the SIR lists continue to surface: a civil society audit in two Okhla booths in Delhi found at least 100 voters wrongly marked absent, shifted, dead or duplicate, Maharashtra's Chief Electoral Officer has asked for Form 6 to be amended for deleted voters, and Goa Forward chief Vijai Sardesai has alleged wrongful additions and transfers. Uttar Pradesh began its drive on 17 October, and one supportive outlet says the SIR has not been abandoned. Summary updated 19 Oct, 07:25 IST
Why it matters: Voter rolls decide who can vote in coming elections, so how they are revised and whether parties and citizens can scrutinise them affects voters in every state.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Why it matters: How India's voter rolls are revised decides who can vote in 2027; the dispute has moved from the Election Commission to the courts, the streets and diplomacy.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: EC orders summary voter-roll revision in 17 states; UP camps begin
Summary before this update: The Election Commission has directed 17 states and Union Territories to carry out a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls with 1 January 2027 as the qualifying date, and will give recognised parties readable versions of the rolls at draft and final stages. Congress's Jairam Ramesh has demanded the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and suspension of the SIR, saying the readable-roll step followed protests, while a senior EC functionary called the revision an annual exercise under election law. Uttar Pradesh began its drive on 17 October, Maharashtra's Chief Electoral Officer has asked the Commission to amend Form 6 for voters deleted in the SIR (a change needing the Centre to alter the electoral rules), Goa Forward chief Vijai Sardesai has alleged wrongful additions and transfers on Goa's rolls, and one supportive outlet says the SIR has not been abandoned.
Note before this update: Outlets split on whether the move is a routine step or a concession forced by opposition protests; neutral reports mainly relay the schedule and procedure.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 19 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 5 of 15 (The Hindu, India Today, Republic, Zee News, Jagran).
Outlets split on whether the move is a routine annual step or a concession forced by opposition protests; neutral reports mainly relay the schedule and procedure.
Why: Frames the moves as concessions under pressure; quotes partisan posts only; no current Commission response.
Why: Stresses voter access and the 13 crore removals; quotes only opposition leaders; no Commission voice.
Why: Almost entirely one Congress spokesperson; claims go unchecked; no Commission or BJP reply. Partisan signal, so it shows in the stance tag.
Why: Single-source wire story built on Chidambaram's attack; describes the switch as a rollback in its own voice.
Why: Frames voter-roll deletions as exclusion, stresses Muslim bulk deletions and civil-liberty concerns, treats the ECI's concessions as forced by pressure. Sourcing is one-sided toward critics and the opposition.
Why: Touches voter enrolment access (young voters) and institutional dissent in the EC; mostly factual, with Congress allegation and press reports given space. Mild access framing, lean slightly critical of Union govt.
Why: Almost entirely Gehlot's allegations against BJP, EC and RSS; stresses protest rights, civil liberties and deleted votes (access), with scepticism of state power. No BJP reply quoted.
Why: Relays an opposition MLA's claims of wrongful additions, deletions and transfers in SIR. It mixes integrity (foreign nationals) and access (missing voters) concerns, so it stays centrist; sourcing is one-sided against the Election Commission.
Why: Mostly relays Congress attacks on the CEC and SIR, stressing risk to 13 crore voters' access; the ECI's reply is brief. Left-leaning on voter access and civil liberties framing.
Why: Stresses exclusion of deleted voters and minorities (Form 7 targeting Muslims), citizenship-verification scrutiny, and links to protest framing; access-over-integrity lens. Procedural tone moderates intensity.
Why: Leads with Congress's attacks on CEC and SIR, framing disenfranchisement of 13 crore voters as access harm; EC response is brief. Sourcing is one-sided, though largely attributed to Ramesh.
Why: Stresses exclusion of long-term, mostly Muslim residents from rolls, with civil-society and affected-voter voices dominating; ACCESS framing over integrity, sceptical of state process. EC response limited to brief stated objectives.
Why: Procedural report of the Commission's schedule; mentions opposition backlash briefly; no voices quoted.
Why: Explainer covering both access steps and verification; calls them long-standing opposition demands, a slight lean.
Why: Voter-guide framing built mostly on the EC directive shared by ANI; opposition claims carried briefly with repeated caveats; no BJP or voter voices.
Why: Plain report of an EC administrative announcement on electoral roll revision; no loaded language, no integrity-versus-access framing, and no critics or supporters quoted. Centre, neutral.
Why: Mostly a procedural report on voter-registration camps; slight access framing through residents whose names were missing or deleted, but no clear ideological slant or criticism.
Why: Data-heavy report on SIR progress in Telangana with no loaded language or critical voices. Voter-roll integrity and access are both touched, but neither is emphasised, so it sits at centre.
Why: Rebuttal of the opposition: 'peddles fake news' in its own voice, anonymous EC sources treated as settled, and an integrity framing of the revision.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: [name to be added before launch]. Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: [name and contact to be added before launch]. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
[Who owns and funds Nazariya, to be published before launch]. Nazariya will list every funder and will not accept money from any political party.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: [appeals email to be added before launch].
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.