The Supreme Court of India recently questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in Bihar. The revision demands fresh proof of citizenship from every voter within a month. This move risks excluding millions from the electoral process. The ECI insists it is a technical exercise to ensure accuracy. However, the implications suggest a shift from inclusive democracy to exclusion based on documentation. This development challenges India’s constitutional promise of universal adult franchise.
Historical Context of Universal Franchise in India
At independence, India adopted universal adult suffrage. This meant every adult citizen could vote regardless of literacy, income, caste or gender. Dr B.R. Ambedkar and others emphasised political equality as a foundation for social justice. The first Chief Election Commissioner, Sukumar Sen, innovated to make voting accessible. Symbols and simple procedures ensured inclusiveness despite widespread illiteracy. The early elections set a precedent for mass participation rather than exclusion.
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision Explained
The SIR requires voters to prove citizenship with documents like birth certificates or passports. Common identity proofs such as Aadhaar or ration cards are not accepted. Bihar’s poor and flood-affected population face severe challenges meeting these demands. Over 65 lakh voters risk removal from electoral rolls. The one-month deadline during monsoon worsens access. This shifts the burden of proof onto citizens, reversing the constitutional principle that citizenship and voting rights are inherent.
Implications for Democracy and Inclusion
This revision threatens to disenfranchise large vulnerable groups. It echoes past practices of voter suppression seen globally, such as in the US Jim Crow era. Legal safeguards in India prohibit arbitrary denial of voting rights. Yet, the process here is rigid and lacks empathy. The ECI’s focus on technical correctness overlooks social realities. If unchecked, voting may become a privilege of the documented middle class, sidelining the poor and marginalised. This risks creating unequal political representation and governance.
Lessons from Assam and Legal Precedents
Similar exercises in Assam led to the classification of many as D-voters or doubtful voters. Thousands faced statelessness and legal limbo. The Supreme Court has ruled that disenfranchisement without due process is unconstitutional. Cases like Md. Rahim Ali vs State of Assam reaffirm citizenship rights. Bihar’s revision risks repeating these mistakes. The Court’s role is critical in balancing administrative processes with constitutional rights.
The Role of the Election Commission and Judiciary
The ECI’s mandate includes ensuring free and fair elections. This means facilitating voter participation, not erecting barriers. The Court’s questions reflect concern for humanitarian consequences. Yet, the ECI maintains a strict administrative stance. The judiciary may need to move from caution to directive action to protect democratic rights. The ongoing situation is a test for India’s commitment to inclusive democracy.
Broader Democratic Principles at Stake
Voting is a declaration of equality and citizenship. It is not a privilege earned by documents but a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The current policy risks undermining this principle. India’s democratic ethos was built by transforming colonial exclusion into mass inclusion. Reversing this risks dividing society into those who vote and those who do not. The stakes involve power, participation and justice for all citizens.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the impact of documentation requirements on voter disenfranchisement in democratic societies with suitable examples.
- Explain the constitutional provisions for universal adult franchise in India and discuss the challenges in its implementation.
- What are the historical lessons from voter suppression in the United States during the Jim Crow era? How can these lessons inform electoral reforms in India?
- Comment on the role of the Election Commission of India and the judiciary in safeguarding democratic rights. How can these institutions balance administrative efficiency with inclusivity?
