The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls currently underway in Bihar has become a focal point of controversy, with critics raising alarms over the feasibility and fairness of the process. Spearheaded by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the revision exercise has drawn criticism for its compressed timeline, stringent verification requirements, and potential to disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate – particularly migrant workers. At the heart of the issue lies the ECI’s stipulation that only “ordinary residents” are eligible for inclusion in the electoral rolls. While seemingly straightforward, this qualification becomes contentious when considering Bihar’s unique demographic realities. An estimated 20% of the state’s electorate comprises migrant workers, many of whom reside temporarily in other states for work and may be unable to return home for verification within the narrow window ending July 31. This restriction, coupled with the requirement of furnishing specific identification documents, disproportionately affects voters in rural areas and marginalized communities with limited access to formal documentation. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, complicates the matter further. It clearly outlines that a person temporarily absent from their place of residence does not cease to be an ordinary resident, provided they intend to return. Electoral roll manuals reinforce this interpretation. Yet, the current implementation of the SIR appears to risk excluding individuals who meet these criteria, primarily due to logistical barriers rather than ineligibility. Adding to the concern is the imbalance in the state’s voting demographics. Bihar has historically seen higher turnout rates among women than men, despite a larger number of male electors being registered. For every 1,000 men on the rolls, there are approximately 917.5 women registered- yet more women vote. For every 1,000 men who voted, 1,017.5 women did. This discrepancy suggests a significant number of absentee male voters may be unable to return for polling, potentially due to work-related migration. If their names are removed during the current revision process, future turnout imbalances could be exacerbated. The rapid pace of the SIR has also raised operational concerns. Conducting a statewide voter verification drive in just one month strains both administrative machinery and citizens’ ability to respond effectively. Legal challenges have already emerged, and public discourse is increasingly critical of what is perceived as a poorly timed and inadequately structured initiative. While the ECI emphasizes the need for accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls, such goals must not come at the cost of democratic participation. The revision process must strike a balance between ensuring legitimacy and preserving enfranchisement. Allowing more time, providing greater procedural transparency, and incorporating protections for absentee voters would help align the exercise with constitutional and statutory guarantees. Without such recalibration, the SIR risks not only eroding voter confidence but also undermining the democratic fabric it seeks to strengthen. This stands in stark contrast to precedent. In earlier years, such a sweeping revision, especially one raising widespread procedural and ethical concerns, might have compelled the Election Commission of India (ECI) to halt or reassess its course. The absence of such reflexivity today is unsettling. As an institution constitutionally mandated to protect and deepen democratic participation, the ECI bears an enormous responsibility. Its actions must not only be procedurally sound but must also appear unimpeachable in public perception. Any move that compromises this credibility risks eroding the trust that forms the bedrock of free and fair elections.
Sunday, July 6, 2025