U.S. President Donald Trump has cited India’s voter identification system while renewing his push for stricter election laws in the United States, even as India’s own electoral process faces scrutiny over voter rolls, allegations of irregularities and concerns about access to the ballot.
In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump said India’s Chief Election Commissioner had questioned how the United States could conduct elections without requiring valid photo identification. Trump noted that more than 640 million Indians voted in the country’s last general election and that only a small proportion cast ballots by mail.
Trump used the comparison to promote the SAVE America Act, legislation backed by Republicans that would impose tougher identification and citizenship-documentation requirements for federal elections.
The version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act, passed by the Republican-controlled House in February would require people registering for federal elections to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate.
It would also strengthen identification requirements for voters casting ballots in person or by mail. Supporters argue the measures would increase confidence in elections and prevent ineligible voters from participating.
Critics counter that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and argue that evidence does not support claims of widespread voter fraud in the United States.
Research by the Brennan Center for Justice has found extremely low rates of voter fraud in elections that have undergone detailed examination, with estimated incident rates ranging between 0.0003 and 0.0025 per cent. Critics of the SAVE America Act warn that stricter documentation requirements could instead prevent eligible Americans from voting.
Democrats have also accused the Trump administration of pushing the legislation ahead of the midterm elections, when Republicans are expected to defend a narrow majority in the House of Representatives
India’s elections are administered by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional body responsible for overseeing national and state elections.
Nearly 970 million Indians were registered to vote in the 2024 general election, with more than 640 million ultimately casting ballots. Voting took place in seven phases over several weeks as the country elected members of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament.
The ECI introduced voter photo identification in 1993 as part of an effort to prevent impersonation and strengthen election administration.
However, possessing a voter identification card alone does not determine eligibility. India’s electoral rolls establish who is entitled to vote in each constituency, and voters are encouraged to confirm that their names appear on the relevant list before polling day.
India Does Allow Some Postal Voting
Contrary to the impression that India conducts elections entirely through in-person voting, the country does allow postal ballots for limited categories of eligible voters.
These include certain members of the armed forces and police, people assigned to election duties and other eligible voters who cannot be physically present in their constituencies because of specified circumstances.
The system allows qualifying voters to receive a postal ballot electronically and return the completed ballot through the mail.
Despite India’s extensive voter identification system, opposition parties have continued to raise allegations of electoral irregularities.
In August 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged problems with electoral rolls used during the 2024 general election, pointing to what he said were suspicious voter registrations in Karnataka’s Mahadevapura constituency.
Gandhi presented examples he alleged showed duplicate or questionable voter records and called on the Election Commission to release electronic electoral rolls and CCTV footage. The government rejected allegations of electoral fraud.
Congress later alleged widespread irregularities in voter records connected with the 2024 Haryana state election, including claims that identical photographs appeared on multiple voter registrations.
Evidence establishing widespread electoral fraud, however, remains limited, and the allegations have been disputed by authorities.
A larger controversy has emerged over India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, an Election Commission exercise intended to identify deceased, duplicate and otherwise ineligible voters.
The process has received support from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government but has faced strong opposition from rival political parties and criticism from some activists and election observers.
During an earlier revision in Bihar, tens of millions of registered voters were required to verify their eligibility, with some asked to provide documents including birth certificates, passports or educational records.
The Election Commission subsequently published a revised list containing 74.2 million voters after approximately 4.7 million names were removed.
Critics argued that the exercise placed an excessive burden on voters and risked excluding eligible citizens who lacked easy access to the required documentation.
The controversy intensified following the completion of the SIR process in West Bengal in 2026. About nine million people — nearly 12 per cent of the state’s approximately 76 million registered voters — were removed from the rolls.
Nearly six million of those voters were classified as absent or deceased, while another three million were unable to vote because their cases could not be heard by special tribunals before the election, according to the report.
Concerns have also been raised about the demographic impact of the removals. The Hindu reported that Muslims accounted for about 34 per cent of deleted names despite representing roughly 27 per cent of West Bengal’s population. Hindus accounted for approximately 63 per cent of removals, including members of the Matua community.
Critics contend these figures raise questions about whether electoral-roll revisions disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Political economist Parakala Prabhakar argued that the process risks allowing authorities to determine who remains on voter lists rather than simply ensuring that eligible citizens can exercise their franchise.
The debate illustrates the limits of using voter identification requirements alone as a measure of election integrity. India’s experience shows that even with widespread photo identification, controversies can persist over electoral rolls, eligibility, institutional independence and whether legitimate voters have adequate access to the ballot.
