Supreme Court should dismiss EC's contentions on Special Intensive Revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls as elitist, contradictory and subversive of democracy
The defining character of the Election Commission (EC)’s ongoing drive for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls is its elitism, and its operating mechanism violates the basic principle of natural justice that an accused person is innocent until his or her guilt is established.
The EC’s assertions granting it exclusive authority to decide who is an eligible voter are little more than an overweening conceit. Its assumptions are full of contradictions.
The Supreme Court should dismiss the EC’s contentions, separate a thorough revision of the Bihar electoral rolls from the forthcoming assembly elections, so that the November elections could be held on the basis of the existing rolls, modified as usual by exclusions and additions as per the EC’s own regular practice. The apex court should mandate EC to honour the commission’s own voter ID cards, Aadhaar, and ration cards as documents that establish the holders’ eligibility to vote, as and when a thorough revision of the rolls is undertaken.
Also read: Bihar SIR: As EC digs in heels and Tejashwi threatens poll boycott, all eyes on SC
Rejections must be backed by proof
Should dead persons, fake voters, people who are on electoral rolls in multiple states, and illegal immigrants be allowed to vote? asks the commission, in rhetorical rebuttal of the opposition to SIR. By deeming such a response to be adequate to refute criticism, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar shows contempt for the intelligence of the critics.
If a booth level officer finds that someone whose name figures on the electoral rolls has died, he can strike that name off, and no one would object. If a name on the list does not correspond to any real person, strike that name off, too. If the same person has registered to vote in multiple states, that also can be remedied without any protest. If someone is deemed ineligible to vote on account of not being a citizen, such alienness would first have to be established before his or her name is struck off. Whoever objects to that person being given the right to vote should be able to prove that the person is a non-citizen.
Why are 2003 rolls sacrosanct?
The EC is willing to accept the authenticity of the 2003 electoral rolls. Proof that a voter or his or her parents figured in the 2003 electoral roll is sufficient proof of eligibility for inclusion in the 2025 rolls. Why is the 2003 electoral roll, prepared on the basis of identity documents such as voter ID cards issued by previous ECs, and ration cards, considered any more authentic than subsequent ones?
On what logical basis, consistent with the presumed fallibility of documents such as current ration cards and Elector’s Photo Identity Cards, does the commission rule out the possibility that foreign nationals and fake voters might have wormed their way into the 2003 rolls?
Capital Beat: Chaos rules Bihar SIR; Opposition poll boycott in the offing?
Illogical demands
How is a poor, semi-literate person, whose home and meagre belongings were washed away by floods more than once, supposed to establish his or her citizenship? The EC has helpfully provided a list of 11 documents it thinks will do the job. Pension orders or ID cards from the government or a public sector undertaking is one. What proportion of Indians have worked for the government? While the world average for public sector employment is about 7 per cent, the figure is close to 2 per cent for India.
A passport is another document. Less than 10 per cent of Indians hold a passport. A quarter of the passports have been issued to the people of Kerala or Maharashtra, according to the Ministry of External Affairs data from 2022.
A matriculation or degree certificate issued by a state board or university is an eligible document. This defies logic. If a family of illegal migrants makes its way into India and enrols a child in school, and the child completes matriculation, that suffices, in the EC’s magical thinking, to prove his citizenship.
Queer case of birth certificates
Birth certificates issued by a competent authority bestow entitlement. For those born after 1989, registration of births was made mandatory. But is anyone sure all births and deaths are meticulously registered? Institutional child birth is still being promoted by giving incentives to the mother to deliver her baby at a hospital or clinic. Such births would be registered. Of the births that still take place at home, presided over by a midwife, how many are registered?
Did all those, whose bodies floated in the Ganga during the worst phase of the Covid pandemic, conscientiously register their virus-stricken end at the village office, before launching themselves into their watery grave?
Also read: Bihar SIR: Public hearing exposes citizens’ hardships; panel criticises EC
The EC is mindful that not everyone might be able to come up with a birth certificate. In that case, it would do if they furnish their parents’ birth certificates! What proportion of India’s landed gentry would be able to lay their hands on their parents’ birth certificates? That would be tiny. Imagine what proportion of India’s landless labour would be able to produce their parents’ birth documents. Given the quality of land records in India, even the landed gentry would struggle to establish their title to the land they occupy.
Unrealistic expectations
Residency certificates, caste certificates, house or land allotment certificates,and family register certificates will also suffice. Residency certificates are issued on the basis of Aadhaar, these days, making these proxies for Aadhaar. Caste certificates are obtained by a tiny percentage who seek higher education or government jobs. Is the EC certain that all house allotments under government schemes were made after verifying the citizenship of the allottee?
In a land as vast and as poorly governed as India has been, at least in large parts and for long periods, to expect everyone to have authentic documentary proof of citizenship is unrealistic. Only the elite would have that. The rest would be able to come up with ration cards, and, these days, Aadhaar. These documents are as close to anything that can serve as proof of belonging to this land.
Also read: Bihar SIR: EC defends voter deletions amid SC scrutiny; what next?
Onus on EC
If, in spite of being able to produce these ubiquitous documents, someone still is of suspect citizenship, the onus should be on the EC and its officers to prove that person’s ineligibility to figure on the voters’ list.
By its arbitrary use of power in the manner in which it is conducting SIR, the EC is subverting democracy, not subserving it. Dear EC, you have been employed in the service of the people, not to lord over them. We, the people of India, are our own sovereign, and do not need you as our lord or overlord.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
