Close on the heels of the controversy in Bihar, the Election Commission of India has now begun a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 other states and Union Territories. The stated aim is to update the rolls, which have been affected by frequent migration, dead voters and other inaccuracies. The revision covers 510 million voters. This is an issue highlighted by most parties – and the Congress party in particular.
Chief ministers of key Opposition-ruled states, such as West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, however, fear that, as the experience in Bihar suggests, the process could risk the disenfranchisement of a significant number of people. The Bihar SIR was conducted on a short timeline – roughly a month for enumeration and a month for claims and objections. It gave a handle to Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, to embark on a state-wide agitation against ‘vote chori (theft)’. The agitation gained traction among the youth. However, it remains to be seen whether Gandhi’s campaign will translate into votes in the upcoming assembly election.
Wiser by the Bihar experience, the ECI has made significant changes in its modus operandi. The most significant change now is the formal provision of a ‘notice period’ for hearing and verification for about 54 days. The hurried approach in Bihar produced glaring statistical anomalies in the final roll. The gender ratio fell to 892 women per 1,000 men from 907 in the pre-SIR roll – well below recent survey figures for Bihar. Women voters were disproportionately excluded in areas with higher female than male turnout in the General Election 2024, particularly in the 18-29 age group under the ‘permanently shifted’ category. High female turnout relative to low registration typically indicates male migration, yet more women were deleted, despite the SIR’s stated aim to remove migrants not ‘ordinarily resident’.
Non-response to anomalies
These anomalies seem to be built into the ECI’s procedural framework, where the primary onus of verification is unduly borne by citizens and party representatives – booth level agents – beyond booth level officers. Expecting members from parties to ensure the inclusion of all eligible voters is problematic, as they are more concerned about political competition. Clearly, the ECI’s non-response to the anomalies – anyone left out can re-register with the help of BLAs (booth-level agents) – was inadequate.
After the Supreme Court’s intervention, the ECI had to publish lists of all excluded voters with reasons, leading to some corrections. An amended model is now being replicated across a larger canvas. Political observers feel that, while the ECI’s provision for BLOs to make three house visits is welcome, temporary migrants who might be absent during the enumeration window, despite remaining ‘ordinarily resident’ by law, could still lose out. The ECI’s stated mitigation, allowing electors to fill out the Enumeration Form online, is insufficient. This provision overlooks the digital divide and literacy challenges, placing an undue burden on voters who are not physically present to be assisted by a BLO.
However, there seems to be a perceptible effort on the part of the authority concerned to smooth out the rough edges of the SIR, the kind that had led to charges of disenfranchisement in Bihar. The differences are noteworthy. For instance, Aadhaar is among the documents that an elector can furnish to demand eligibility; in Bihar, this key document was inserted only after the intervention of the highest court. Refreshingly, there is now a formal provision of a specified time period for dealing with hearings and verifications in case of contestation. This is an important condition, because the purpose of an SIR, the political sloganeering from some quarters notwithstanding, is not one of exclusion: the intent should be to produce electoral rolls devoid of infirmities without resorting to mass disenfranchisement
As this exercise unfolds, one can expect predictable fireworks from the Opposition parties. But, as in Bihar, whether this will really affect the integrity of India’s electoral democracy remains to be seen.
Interestingly, the ECI’s decision to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls remains under question in the SC, even as the poll body has announced the second phase of the exercise.
The SC, in a 10 July order, had highlighted the basic questions posed by petitioners challenging the first phase of the SIR exercise in Bihar. These primarily included whether the Election Commission (EC) has the ‘very powers to undertake the exercise’. Secondly, the court had flagged the petitioners’ objection to the ‘procedure and the manner in which the SIR exercise is being undertaken’.