Disclaimer: Copyright infringement not intended.

Context:

In a democracy of 1.4 billion, every vote matters. But for millions of migrants from Bihar, democracy is quietly leaving them behind.

A recent controversy over the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has exposed a deeper fault-line: millions of internal migrants risk exclusion from the franchise because routine administrative verification treats mobility as abandonment of voter rights.

What began as a technical drive to cleanse the rolls has become a test of democratic inclusion: whether India’s institutions protect the voting rights of its most mobile citizens or render them invisible.

Details:

The ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) for Bihar; draft rolls published after the exercise showed roughly 6.5 million names removed or omitted in the SIR exercise, with reasons like “permanently migrated”, death, or duplication listed. In response, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish a searchable list of the deleted names and reasons.

Ground reports and surveys show confusion on the ground: many migrant workers were unaware of the SIR process, and multiple field reports describe people who voted in previous years but are now listed as “not traceable” or “migrated.” Volunteer surveys indicate low awareness among migrants about the documents required to retain enrolment.

About Electoral Rolls:

• An Electoral Roll, also called a Voter List or Electoral Register, is the official record of all persons entitled to vote in a particular constituency.
• It serves as the primary instrument for verifying voter identity and ensuring the conduct of free, fair, and transparent elections.
• The preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, under the supervision of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
• Eligibility: Every citizen of India who has attained the age of 18 years and is ordinarily resident in a constituency is entitled to be enrolled as a voter (Section 19, RP Act, 1950).
• Exclusion: Persons who are not Indian citizens, or those disqualified under the law, are barred from enrolment (Section 16, RP Act, 1950).

Constitutional and legal framework

Why migrants are vulnerable — administrative and social dimensions

• Circular and seasonal migration: Migrants often retain homes and family ties in origin states while working elsewhere. House-to-house enumeration during SIR treats absence at the time of enumeration as “permanent migration”. That administrative shorthand conflates physical absence with loss of political belonging.
• Document poverty and proof requirements: The SIR exercise has demanded documentary proof for certain categories (especially for people added after 2003).
• Many poor, informal workers lack birth certificates, passports, or school records; Aadhaar or ration cards—used previously—are now at times treated inconsistently. Surveys show many migrants are unaware of the new documentary demands and timelines to respond.
• Information gap and short windows: The process relies on timely awareness and claims/objections mechanisms. Short notice periods, limited outreach, and digital barriers mean many migrants cannot file claims from places of work. The result is procedural disenfranchisement rather than substantive correction.

Political and democratic implications

• Erosion of the presumption of inclusion. India’s electoral system long operated on inclusion — citizens are presumed eligible unless proved otherwise.
  • SIR’s practical effect for migrants has been a reversal: citizens must now repeatedly prove eligibility or risk removal. Critics argue this shifts burdens onto the poorest and most mobile.
• Potential partisan skew: Large and uneven deletions in particular districts risk altering electoral arithmetic. Even if unintentionally administered, mass removals of voters from particular demographic groups (migrants, poor, low-document communities) have distributive political consequences and can feed perceptions of manipulation.
  • Independent watchdogs, petitioners, and some Opposition parties have challenged the SIR in courts.

Role of institutions — ECI, Judiciary, and civil society

• Election Commission: Legally empowered to revise rolls and to ensure integrity, the ECI must balance roll accuracy with the right to vote. Transparency (publishing deleted names, reasons, and a simple claims process) is essential to legitimacy; the Supreme Court’s interim direction to publish the deleted list was aimed at precisely this transparency.
• Judiciary: The Supreme Court’s interventions (ordering publication, examining safeguards) show the judiciary acting as a check when administrative action may curtail core political rights.
  • Yet judicial review must be timely — delayed relief does not help a citizen who has lost the right to vote in a pending election.
• Civil society and media: On-the-ground reporting, volunteer surveys, and NGOs have been crucial in bringing migrant experiences into public view — showing that technical processes have human consequences.

Policy prescriptions — what must be done?

• Presumption of continuity for migrants: Administrative rules should assume continuity of electoral entitlement for registered voters who migrate internally, unless proof of new permanent registration is provided.
• This preserves the franchise while allowing verification. (Amend or interpret Registration Rules accordingly.)
• Allow remote/online claims for migrants and extend windows: The ECI should provide simple online and telephone claim processes linked to EPIC/Aadhaar that can be used from the place of work; extend claim windows to account for mobility and seasonal work cycles.

• Use Aadhaar responsibly as an identity anchor: Where constitutional and statutory safeguards allow, Aadhaar-EPIC linkage (with privacy safeguards) can prevent wrongful deletion, provided it is not weaponised for exclusion. Clear rules and citizen notice must precede any linkage-based deletions.
• Strong outreach and special camps at destinations: For major source states (Bihar, UP, Odisha, etc.), the ECI, with state administrations and employers, should set up enrolment camps at migration destinations and transport hubs.
• Transparent publishing and quick remedy: The ECI must make machine-readable, searchable lists of deletions public (SC demanded this) and provide doorstep grievance resolution and mobile BLO verification teams.

Conclusion:

Free and fair elections are not merely about accurate numbers on a roll; they are about ensuring that the most vulnerable are not rendered invisible by the very machinery meant to protect the franchise. The Bihar SIR episode is a reminder that administrative rigor must be matched by procedural fairness and outreach.

India’s democratic legitimacy depends on preserving the franchise for internal migrants even while guarding against fraud. The choice before the ECI, the judiciary and the polity is simple: strengthen inclusion-friendly verification, or risk the erosion of universal adult suffrage in practice if not in law.

Source: THE HINDU