 |
|
The legal battle surrounding the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) revolves around a fundamental tenet of natural justice: the right to be heard before being harmed. In this instance, the 'person' in question encompasses the approximately 6.5 million voters who were purportedly 'deleted' from the draft electoral roll published by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on August 1st. The 'interest' at stake is nothing less than the Constitutional right to remain on a constituency's electoral roll, a right central to democratic participation. The Supreme Court Bench, presided over by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, has repeatedly questioned whether the challenge to the SIR concerns the legality of its procedures or the ECI's inherent power to conduct such an exercise. Petitioners argue that the 'illegality' stems from a procedure that 'presumptively excludes' existing electors until they furnish proof of citizenship. This, coupled with the mass deletion of voters without a prior enquiry by the Election Registration Officer (ERO) and the absence of a reasonable opportunity for electors to be heard after being suspected of non-citizenship, constitutes a 'casual' exercise of the ECI's significant power to oversee the electoral roll under Article 324 of the Constitution. The petitioners emphasized that the sheer scale of the deletions, coupled with the lack of due process, undermined the integrity of the electoral process and disenfranchised a substantial portion of the voting population. The argument before the Supreme Court highlights the delicate balance between the ECI's constitutional mandate to ensure free and fair elections and the individual voter's fundamental right to participate in the democratic process. The petitioners contend that the SIR process, as implemented, tipped the scales too heavily in favor of administrative efficiency at the expense of individual rights and procedural fairness. They argue that the ECI's actions created an environment of uncertainty and fear, potentially deterring eligible voters from exercising their franchise. The crux of their argument rests on the premise that the ECI, in its zeal to cleanse the electoral roll, overstepped its bounds and violated the principles of natural justice.
Statutory laws establish rigorous standards and procedures to guide the ECI in registering names on electoral rolls. These laws aim to strike a balance between the ECI's power of superintendence over elections, as enshrined in Article 324, and the fundamental right to vote, guaranteed to ordinary citizens ('the little man') under Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 62 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act. Section 16 of the RP Act outlines three specific reasons for disqualifying a person from being registered on an electoral roll: non-citizenship, unsound mind, and corruption or offenses related to elections. Section 22 empowers an ERO to delete an elector from the rolls, but only after conducting an enquiry. Critically, the elector in question 'must' be given an opportunity to be heard, except in cases of death. Similarly, Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960 grants the ECI the authority to delete existing names from electoral rolls, but the procedure for removal must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The ECI itself acknowledges that no name will be deleted without notice, a statement that directly contradicts the alleged practices of the Bihar SIR. The legal framework emphasizes the importance of due process and transparency in any action that could potentially disenfranchise a voter. The provisions requiring notice and a hearing are designed to ensure that individuals are given a fair opportunity to challenge any allegations against them and to present evidence in their own defense. The legal standards also establish the burden of proof. While the ECI has the authority to investigate potential irregularities and to remove ineligible voters from the rolls, it must do so in a manner that respects individual rights and adheres to the principles of natural justice. This requires providing clear and specific reasons for the proposed deletion, allowing the individual to respond to those reasons, and making a reasoned decision based on the evidence presented.
The Supreme Court's judgment in Lal Babu Hussein versus ERO (1995) serves as a pivotal case law in the current hearing. This case distinguishes between first-time electors and existing electors, meaning those whose names are being entered on the rolls for the first time versus those whose names are already in the voters' list of a constituency. The Supreme Court affirmed that the ECI is within its rights to demand evidence of Indian citizenship from first-time electors. However, regarding existing electors, the court emphasized that 'it must be presumed that before entering his name the officer concerned must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute.' The Bihar draft roll has deleted voters who have participated in multiple elections, some for over two decades. Petitioners have alleged that electors were deleted simply because local Booth Level Officers did not recommend their names for continuation. This places the burden squarely on these individuals to prove their citizenship to the ECI, with only two months remaining before the Assembly elections in November. In Lal Babu Hussein, the apex court clarified that the 'opportunity' given to an existing voter to be heard before the deletion of their name must be 'meaningful and purposive'. The Supreme Court explicitly stated: 'It goes without saying that the person concerned whose name is borne on the roll and is intended to be removed must be informed why a suspicion has arisen in regard to his status as a citizen of India so that he may be able to show that the basis for the suspicion is ill founded. Unless the basis for the doubt is disclosed, it would not be possible for the person to remove the doubt and explain any circumstance or circumstances responsible for the doubt.' This underscores the importance of transparency and specificity in the deletion process, ensuring that individuals are given a fair opportunity to defend their right to vote.
The principles articulated in Lal Babu Hussein directly challenge the procedures allegedly employed during the Bihar SIR. The blanket deletion of voters based on superficial inquiries or the absence of recommendations from Booth Level Officers, without providing specific reasons for the suspicion of non-citizenship, appears to be a direct violation of the Supreme Court's directives. Furthermore, placing the burden of proof on existing voters to proactively demonstrate their citizenship, after having participated in previous elections, contradicts the presumption that the original registration process was conducted properly. The legal dispute over the Bihar SIR highlights the complexities inherent in maintaining accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls while simultaneously safeguarding the fundamental rights of individual voters. While the ECI has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and ensuring that only eligible citizens participate in elections, it must pursue these objectives in a manner that is consistent with the principles of natural justice and the established legal framework. The Supreme Court's ongoing hearing of the Bihar SIR case represents a crucial opportunity to clarify the boundaries of the ECI's authority and to reaffirm the importance of due process in protecting the right to vote. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the conduct of future electoral roll revisions and for the overall integrity of the electoral process in India. The focus is on balancing the needs of administrative efficiency with the protection of fundamental rights, a balance that is essential for maintaining a healthy and vibrant democracy.
The implications of the Bihar SIR dispute extend beyond the immediate issue of voter deletions in a single state. The case raises fundamental questions about the role of the Election Commission of India, the rights of individual voters, and the importance of due process in a democracy. If the Supreme Court finds that the ECI's actions in Bihar were indeed unlawful, it could set a precedent that would limit the ECI's authority to conduct similar exercises in the future. This could potentially make it more difficult for the ECI to remove ineligible voters from the rolls and to prevent voter fraud. However, a ruling in favor of the ECI could embolden the commission to adopt more aggressive tactics in the future, potentially leading to further disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The case also underscores the importance of public awareness and vigilance in protecting the right to vote. Voters need to be informed about their rights and how to challenge any attempts to remove them from the electoral roll. Civil society organizations and advocacy groups have a crucial role to play in educating voters, providing legal assistance, and monitoring the conduct of elections. Ultimately, the integrity of the electoral process depends on the active participation of citizens and their willingness to hold government institutions accountable. The Bihar SIR dispute serves as a reminder that the right to vote is not simply a privilege, but a fundamental right that must be protected and defended. The case is about more than just the deletion of names from a voter list, it's about the protection of democracy and the fair representation of all citizens.