 |
|
The article delves into the significant deviations from established practices observed in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. This revision, which is currently under scrutiny by the Supreme Court due to widespread apprehension across the state, marks a notable departure from previous such exercises in two fundamental aspects. Firstly, for the first time, the SIR places the burden of proof of citizenship on already-enrolled voters at the draft roll stage. Secondly, it disregards the “sanctity” of the existing electoral roll, a principle that the Election Commission (EC) had consistently instructed its officers to uphold in all earlier revisions. This shift in approach contradicts a High Court order, later upheld by the Supreme Court, which emphasized the importance of self-declaration and clarified that the “question of citizenship” did not arise during the preparation of the draft roll. The EC has undertaken intensive revisions of electoral rolls on several occasions in the past, particularly in the mid-20th century and the early 2000s. These revisions involved a de novo preparation of the electoral roll through house-to-house field verification by electoral registration officers (EROs). However, a scrutiny of the methodology adopted in past exercises reveals that the Commission had never before required existing electors to furnish documentary proof to remain on the electoral roll. Under the current Bihar SIR, those who were on the 2003 electoral rolls need only submit an extract from it as proof, while others (enrolled after 2003) must provide one or more documents from a list of eleven to establish their date and/or place of birth, which is then used to determine citizenship. This contrasts sharply with earlier intensive revisions, where enumerators visited households to record details of all residents aged 18 or above based solely on information provided by the head of the household, without demanding documentary proof or verifying citizenship. The draft electoral roll was then prepared based on this information. The Gauhati High Court, in the case of H.R.A. Chaudhury vs. Election Commission and Others, upheld by the Supreme Court, had previously ruled that draft rolls should be prepared based on statements submitted by heads of households and that the rules did not contemplate any inquiry into citizenship at the draft roll stage. The court emphasized that the statement made by the head of the household had its own value and could not be lightly brushed aside. This order came after the Commission attempted to prepare two lists during enumeration in Assam: one listing persons clearly identified as citizens and another listing those whose citizenship was in doubt. The article underscores that another significant departure from past intensive revision exercises is the fact that the Commission had consistently advised its officers to uphold the sanctity of the existing electoral rolls and the names of those already included in successive rolls. This principle is now being questioned, as the EC is requiring those enrolled after 2003 to prove their eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll once again. This principle was evident in earlier exercises when the question of verifying the citizenship of individuals included in the draft roll arose. The EC had instructed its officers that such names should not be deleted merely on the allegation that the individuals were non-citizens. Even during the claims and objections stage, the Commission maintained that deletion of names should only be based on positive documentary proof obtained by the objector and that the elector should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The onus was clearly on the objector, not the elector. In 1983, when the Chief Minister of Mizoram suggested disenfranchising all illegal entrants/immigrants after a certain date, the EC reiterated its stand on the sanctity of the existing electoral roll and clarified that the question of illegal migrants was not the concern of the Commission. The EC requested the Chief Minister to take up the issue with the Ministry of Home Affairs. In its instructions to EROs on the intensive revision of J&K electoral rolls in 2004, the EC advised its officers that when an existing elector’s citizenship is suspected or objected to, the ERO should bear in mind that the entire gamut for inclusion of the name in the electoral roll must have been undertaken in the past and that adequate probative value should be attached to that factum before issuance of notice and in subsequent proceedings.
The EC official who was asked about the departure from the earlier practices defended the new rules by asserting that during an intensive revision, the names of shifted and dead voters get deleted easily; something difficult to do in summary revision. Hence, the instruction to seek documentary proof of electors enrolled after 2003. Defending the requirement of documentary proof from existing electors, the official said, “We want to build a robust database of documentary proof so that any future queries on eligibility of voters can be addressed by just referring to this database.” However, the article effectively highlights how the current approach in Bihar deviates from the established norms and principles upheld by the Election Commission in the past. The change in the burden of proof, placing it on already-enrolled voters, raises concerns about potential disenfranchisement and the erosion of trust in the electoral process. The disregard for the sanctity of existing electoral rolls, which the EC had previously emphasized, further undermines the credibility of the revision exercise. The article underscores the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and guidelines to ensure a fair and transparent electoral process. The historical context provided by the article, highlighting the EC's previous practices and the Gauhati High Court's ruling, effectively demonstrates the extent to which the current Bihar SIR deviates from established norms. The article also raises important questions about the potential consequences of this shift in approach, including the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and the erosion of public trust in the electoral process. It's worth remembering that the Supreme Court is involved with this matter, so there may be a change soon. The EC has a long-standing tradition of maintaining the voter list. These new changes may be brought back into line soon. This change of direction from the established norm shows the government may be trying to shape the electorate, or at least have more control over the entire process. The article does make mention to the database of voters, so having a database is likely not a bad thing in and of itself. It's only problematic because they are reversing the onus onto the citizen, rather than maintaining it on the state. When it comes to elections, trust is paramount. If the citizens don't trust the system, it's ripe for a revolution. This change is very problematic if it is not based on some new information that would indicate that the voters in question are not legally allowed to vote. The article is not clear on any of those kinds of details.
The potential ramifications of this shift in approach extend beyond the immediate context of Bihar. If the EC's actions in Bihar are seen as a precedent, it could lead to similar revisions in other states, potentially disenfranchising vulnerable populations and undermining the integrity of the electoral process nationwide. The article's analysis of past EC records provides a valuable historical perspective, highlighting the importance of consistency and adherence to established principles in electoral administration. The EC's previous emphasis on the sanctity of existing electoral rolls and the presumption of citizenship for already-enrolled voters were crucial safeguards against arbitrary disenfranchisement. The current Bihar SIR, by abandoning these safeguards, raises serious concerns about the potential for abuse and manipulation. The article's focus on the legal and procedural aspects of electoral revision is essential for understanding the broader implications of the EC's actions in Bihar. The Gauhati High Court's ruling, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, established a clear legal framework for the preparation of draft electoral rolls, emphasizing the importance of self-declaration and prohibiting inquiries into citizenship at the draft roll stage. The current Bihar SIR, by disregarding this legal framework, raises questions about the EC's respect for the rule of law. The article's analysis of the EC's past instructions to EROs further underscores the extent to which the current Bihar SIR deviates from established norms. The EC's previous emphasis on providing reasonable opportunity to electors to be heard and placing the burden of proof on the objector, rather than the elector, were crucial safeguards against arbitrary disenfranchisement. The current Bihar SIR, by shifting the burden of proof to the elector, raises concerns about the potential for discrimination and unfair treatment. The article's conclusion, which emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and guidelines, is a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. The EC, as the guardian of the electoral process, has a responsibility to ensure that all eligible citizens are able to exercise their right to vote without fear of discrimination or arbitrary disenfranchisement. The current Bihar SIR, by deviating from established norms and principles, raises serious questions about the EC's commitment to this responsibility.
In conclusion, the article effectively analyzes the significant deviations from established practices observed in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. By placing the burden of proof of citizenship on already-enrolled voters and disregarding the sanctity of existing electoral rolls, the EC's actions raise serious concerns about potential disenfranchisement and the erosion of trust in the electoral process. The article's historical context, legal analysis, and focus on the potential ramifications of this shift in approach make it a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about electoral reform in India. It serves as a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance in protecting the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that all eligible citizens are able to exercise their right to vote without fear of discrimination or arbitrary disenfranchisement. The fact that the Supreme Court is reviewing this procedure indicates how important this topic is, and that they realize how significant the voter list is for a healthy democracy. Without the voter list, there can't be a legitimate election, and without legitimate elections, there can't be a healthy democracy. There are significant benefits of the long-held process for voter enrolment, and it appears to be getting cast aside in favor of a newer one that makes it more difficult for many to be added to the voting rolls. The goal may be to get the fraudulent voters removed from the rolls, but the byproduct will also be the removal of legitimate voters who can't get the documents required. These new rules could also suppress the vote of those who are less educated or otherwise are not able to read all the rules to comply with them. In the end, it's the responsibility of the state to provide a list of eligible voters, not the other way around, but that is exactly what is happening here. Unless there is a significant reason to suspect voter fraud, it is better to have a voter than to not have one. Otherwise, democracy is in peril.
Source: In Bihar, EC doesn’t follow its own practice, puts onus on voters, ignores existing rolls