Course-corrected SIR holds invaluable lessons

Electoral rolls must be revised with fairness and transparency

Course-corrected SIR holds invaluable lessons 

The controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has come to an end with some conclusions that will be debated for their implications and lessons about how such an exercise should not be conducted. The final list published by the Election Commission has 7.42 crore voters, about 6% less than the 7.89 crore in June. About 65 lakh voters were removed from the draft list since they were either absent, had moved, or were dead. The list, published on August 1, had 7.24 crore voters on it. Out of them, 3.66 lakh were found ineligible and therefore removed, and 21.53 lakh new names were added. It might be argued that the final outcome does not validate the fears and apprehensions about the exercise. But a more correct argument would be that the pressure exerted on the Commission in various ways saved the exercise and its outcome from being vitiated by its process.

It was the campaign launched by the Opposition parties, the engagement of civil society and its organisations, the unflagging monitoring of the media, and above all, crucial interventions made by the Supreme Court that limited the potential for damage of the exercise. The very timing of SIR was questionable as it was sought to be done too close to the Assembly elections, leaving little time and scope for it to be fairly conducted and mistakes to be corrected. Some important ideas came up with the court’s intervention, which should be considered a lesson to guide future exercises. No one disputed the Commission’s power to conduct SIR but it had to be done fairly and transparently. Maximum inclusion should be the aim of the exercise and not exclusion and deletion, as in the original SIR plan. The voters should not be made to prove  their citizenship. It is for the state to prove that a citizen is a voter, and she should not be burdened with that responsibility. The court’s direction that Aadhaar should be used as a document made a big difference in a state where most documents prescribed by the Commission would have been difficult to procure for many voters. 

The deletions, as seen in the final list, were mostly on account of death, migration and duplication. According to available data, there were not many foreigners and infiltrators on the rolls. That falsifies the much-touted claim that ghuspatias (infiltrators) are influencing the country’s elections. The Bihar SIR experience shows how important democratic vigil is in protecting the citizen’s rights against wrongful actions of even Constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission. The Commission should learn the right lessons from Bihar if it proposes to launch similar exercises elsewhere.