 |
|
Yogendra Yadav's rejoinder in the Supreme Court casts a long shadow over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process underway in Bihar, alleging that it could disenfranchise approximately 40 lakh voters. This is not merely a technicality; it strikes at the very heart of democratic participation and raises serious questions about the integrity and fairness of the electoral process. Yadav's argument centers around the claim that the SIR exercise, intended to update electoral rolls, is exclusionary both in its design and its implementation, potentially leading to the wrongful deletion of a significant number of eligible voters. The core of the dispute lies in the Election Commission of India's (ECI) approach to updating the voter list. Yadav contends that the ECI's requirement for electors to submit enumeration forms, coupled with a tight deadline and insufficient outreach, has resulted in a substantial portion of the electorate – approximately 5.2%, or 39.4 lakh individuals – failing to comply. This failure, he argues, is being used as a pretext to categorize these individuals into broad, unsubstantiated categories such as 'foreign illegal immigrants,' 'permanently shifted,' or 'enrolled in more than one place,' without any concrete evidence to support such claims. Such sweeping generalizations, Yadav asserts, risk mass disenfranchisement, particularly given the rushed and flawed nature of the enumeration process, which is reportedly constrained by limited infrastructure and personnel. The implications of this potential disenfranchisement are profound. A loss of 40 lakh voters from the electoral rolls could significantly alter the outcome of future elections in Bihar, potentially undermining the democratic process and eroding public trust in the electoral system. Moreover, the categorization of individuals as 'foreign illegal immigrants' without due process or evidence raises serious concerns about discrimination and the violation of fundamental rights. Yadav's rejoinder directly challenges the ECI's assertion that the SIR exercise is 'all-inclusive,' arguing that the commission's own data contradicts this claim. He points out that as of July 18, 2025, just a week before the deadline for submitting enumeration forms, the ECI had only covered 94.68% of the 7.9 crore Bihar electorate, leaving a substantial number of voters unaccounted for. This, he argues, is an unprecedented number in any electoral revision exercise and suggests a systemic failure to reach all eligible voters. Yadav also raises concerns about the burden of proof being shifted onto the elector. He notes that individuals whose names appeared on the electoral rolls revised in January and April 2025, and who have voted in previous elections, now face the prospect of deletion solely for not submitting or not being given an enumeration form. This, he argues, represents a radical departure from established law and precedent, which presumes citizenship once a person's name is on the electoral rolls. By requiring voters to re-establish their eligibility through a fresh and onerous verification process, the ECI is effectively reversing the presumption of citizenship and placing an undue burden on the electorate. The rejoinder further highlights the discrepancy between the ECI's claim that individuals can still submit enumeration forms during the claims and objections phase and the reality that those individuals will be treated as new voters. This means that they will be required to submit a self-declaration along with Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, a form used exclusively for new voter registrations. This effectively erases their status as registered electors and subjects them to the full burden of re-establishing their eligibility through a fresh and onerous verification process. This process could prove challenging for many voters, particularly those who lack the necessary documentation or are unfamiliar with the bureaucratic procedures. The Supreme Court's decision in this matter will have far-reaching consequences for the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar and potentially for the entire country. If the court finds merit in Yadav's arguments, it could order the ECI to take corrective measures to ensure that all eligible voters are included on the electoral rolls and that no one is wrongfully disenfranchised. This could involve extending the deadline for submitting enumeration forms, increasing outreach efforts to reach underserved communities, and streamlining the verification process to make it more accessible to all voters. Conversely, if the court upholds the ECI's position, it could set a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify similar exclusionary practices in other states, potentially leading to widespread disenfranchisement and undermining the democratic process. The case also raises broader questions about the role of the ECI in ensuring free and fair elections. The ECI is a constitutional body charged with the responsibility of conducting elections in a transparent and impartial manner. However, its actions in this case have been called into question, with critics accusing it of being insensitive to the needs of marginalized communities and of prioritizing efficiency over fairness. It is crucial that the ECI uphold its constitutional mandate and take all necessary steps to ensure that every eligible voter has the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. The outcome of this case will not only determine the fate of 40 lakh voters in Bihar but will also have a significant impact on the future of democracy in India. It is therefore imperative that the Supreme Court carefully consider all the evidence and arguments presented by both sides and render a decision that is fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The role of Advocate Natasha Maheshwari and Advocate Harshit Anand, who drew the rejoinder, and Advocate Yash S Vijay, who filed it, is also noteworthy. Their legal expertise and commitment to upholding the rights of voters have been instrumental in bringing this important issue before the Supreme Court. The case highlights the importance of a strong and independent legal profession in safeguarding democracy and ensuring that the voices of the marginalized are heard. The Supreme Court's decision in Association for Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and connected matters (W.P.(C) No. 640/2025) will be a landmark ruling that will shape the future of electoral politics in India.