A new controversy has gripped Bihar over the Election Commission’s recently announced Special Intensive Revision (SIR) leaving voters anxious whether or not all voters will be allowed to cast their vote, which is their fundamental right. There is a sense of insecurity as its timing, execution, and intent are being questioned.
The last intensive revision was carried out in 2003. Voters whose names appear in the 2003 voters’ list need not provide any proof. Those who are registered as voters after the publication of the 2003 electoral roll, after intensive revision, must submit proof of their date/place of birth and records of parents to establish their eligibility. Children of around 4.96 crore people listed in the 2003 rolls need not provide any parental documents during the ongoing SIR.
The EC has cited the reasons for rapid urbanisation, frequent migration on account of education, livelihood and other factors. This comes barely four months before an election, which remains to be seen how challenging it would be administratively. In fact, to cover almost 7 crore voters in nearly 30 days if not possible, would harm the image of the Election Commission. It is essential for electoral rolls to be updated but the untimely exercise would affect the vulnerable sections such as migrant labourers, women and the poor.
Mass disenfranchisement is a genuine concern which defeats the essence of a democracy which is to facilitate accessibility. Fear is also palpable among voters because a majority would not possess all the 11 documents demanded under the SIR. Even if a voter has an Aadhaar card and a voter ID and obtains a residential certificate, if his/her parents are dead, where one will find their birth certificate is a question that the citizens are asking.
Opposition parties have raised questions pointing out that the exercise is “devious and dubious” that carries a “huge risk of wilful exclusion” of voters, with officials having the power to “control and dictate” which document to accept or not.
A significant development drawing increased scrutiny is Clause 5(b), which empowers local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to refer individuals they “suspect” of being foreign nationals to citizenship authorities. Legal experts and human rights analysts express concerns that this provision could function as a ‘backdoor NRC’ (National Register of Citizens), potentially affecting the citizenship status of referred individuals. Legal experts warn that such referrals lack clear statutory basis and judicial oversight, potentially leading to disenfranchisement, detention, or even deportation without robust due process.
The commission could have shifted the exercise of revision of electoral rolls to a later time by allowing feedback, public awareness campaign and consultation because it concerns the citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to vote.
So far, four pleas have been filed challenging the Election Commission of India’s decision to hold the SIR. These include petitions filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha; the Association for Democratic Reforms, PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav and Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra challenging the ECI decision. The legal battle becomes crucial, given the Election Commission’s plans to eventually implement the exercise all over the country.
