EC’s Bihar voter list revision rekindles citizenship concerns

WHAT is legal may not always be fair. The ‘purification’of electoral rolls is a laudable objective, a legitimate demand and an onerous responsibility. Sukumar Sen, the first Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) withstood pressure for 18 months before conducting the first elections in 1951, only after satisfying himself about the quality of the electoral roll (ER). The present CEC, too, earlier this year, responding to complaints of alleged manipulations and discrepancies in the ERs, assured the nation of corrective steps within 90 days. One such step has brought the Election Commission (EC) in the eye of a storm — one of the several engulfing the institution in recent times, sometimes of its own making.

Unlike the conduct of periodic elections, the preparation of ERs is a continuous exercise, including revision before every election as per Section 21(2) of the Representation of People Act 1950 (RP Act 1950) and Rule 25 of the Registration of Elector Rules. Accordingly, a nationwide revision exercise would have been held before the General Elections in 2024. Five state Assembly elections have been held thereafter without a Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

On June 24 this year, the EC ordered the SIR of the ERs of Bihar, a few months before the Assembly polls due in the state later this year. Ostensibly, this was to ensure that “all eligible citizens are included in the ER", “no ineligible voter is included" and “to introduce complete transparency in the process of addition or deletion of electors."

The order outlined an elaborate procedure for the intensive revision but created a controversial distinction between electors enrolled before and after 2003, the year in which the last SIR was done in Bihar. It mandates the latter category to substantiate their claims by submitting prescribed documents as proof of their citizenship. This, according to the EC, was necessary despite the fact that their eligibility conditions to enrol as electors “were already verified by the ERO to his satisfaction" in accordance with Section 23 of the RP Act 1950. The order argues that this would enable uploading on the ECINET “the documents on the basis of which such satisfaction of ERO was arrived at."

The timing of the announcement and its suddenness immediately raised hackles, especially as this exercise was not started in other states, where ‘purification’ was equally important and polls not immediately in sight, giving the ECI the facility of time to explain the purpose and the procedure without fraying tempers.

What has strengthened suspicion is the difficulty in fathoming the basis on which ECI is attaching greater evidentiary value to the credentials of only those registered until 2003. Para 11 of the ECI instructions states “the EROs shall treat the ER of 2003…as probative evidence of eligibility, including presumption of citizenship."

The possibility of migration, death, employment, etc cited by the ECI is applicable in both categories of electors. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why a distinction is being made between the procedure followed before and after 2003. It is especially so as the procedure followed to enrol electors during the summary or intensive revision or the ongoing enrolment is the same — involving the submission of prescribed documents and physical verification by a BLO.

There have been five General Elections and five state Assembly elections after the last SIR in Bihar. All those enrolled as electors had a right to vote by virtue of having been enrolled following the due process, including routine or summary revision, as provided for in the RP Act.

It is apprehended that as per the initial notification of June 24, electors registered after 2003 would stand automatically deleted in the draft electoral roll if they failed to produce any satisfactory documentary evidence. The ECI would do well to issue a formal order and a press note that this is not what is implied in para 13 of the June 24 order, which says that “the draft roll shall include the names of all the electors who have submitted a duly filled Enumeration Form before July 25, 2025. This being an intensive revision, in case enumeration form is not submitted before July 25, 2025, the name of the elector cannot be included in the draft rolls."

Annexure B Detailed Guidelines for Special Intensive Revision para 3e states that each elector is required to “submit this form along with requisite information and self-attested documents to the BLO." The EC should immediately clarify that “duly filled" shall not mean only ‘forms accompanied by the requisite documents’ and that the BLO shall not “recommend" for rejection (as authorised in para 7(vii) of the order) such enumeration forms resulting in their exclusion from the draft electoral rolls. This would help in allaying the misgivings regarding large-scale deletion of electors from the draft rolls.

That still leaves doubts about the ability of millions being asked to produce the prescribed document/s, especially when they would have done it in the past as per the EC’s own admission.

Realising this, the EC, on June 30, clarified that “anyone whose name is not in the 2003 Bihar ER can still use the extract of 2003 ER rather than providing any other documents for his/her mother or father…the relevant extract/ details of the 2003 ER would be sufficient." This would supposedly ease the burden of those who were earlier required to produce documents that might be hard to procure.

Besides the practical difficulties that bona fide electors might face in producing the documents, what has further fuelled controversy is the distinction that the EC has made between those born before 01.07.1987, who must give documentary evidence of their birth, and those born between 01.07.1987 and 02.12.2004 to provide any document “for Self and for Father or Mother" and those born after 02.12.2004 to provide document “for Self, for Father, and for Mother", establishing date of birth and/or place of birth. The EC has argued that it has made this distinction during the SIR as it “will strictly implement Article 326" that provides for adult suffrage to “every person who is a citizen of India."

The furore stems from the fact that the EC was hitherto also relying on documentary evidence and physical verification of everyone in the same way upholding Article 326 but now seeks to make a distinction in keeping with the provisions of the Citizenship Act. It is debatable whether in a country where no citizenship document is issued by the government, the ECI should go by a provision that risks depriving citizens of voting rights or follow its own time-tested procedure. The ECI has always preferred the inclusive approach to enrol voters in keeping with its primary responsibility. Why has it opted for a new approach and procedure?

What would be the fate of electors earlier enrolled, issued EPIC but now disenfranchised because of their inability to produce the prescribed documents? Would the government take over their cases to determine their citizenship? The fate of those in Assam put in the D (doubtful) category years ago in a similar exercise, is still unknown. There is no data in the public domain to show the number of voters classified D and the final decision taken by the competent authority in their cases. The SIR in Bihar may create more such ‘lost’ citizens.

Sometimes when one puts one’s hand in hot water to disinfect, one could end up burning one’s fingers.

Ashok Lavasa is former Election Commissioner of India.

Comments