​Band aid: on the Supreme Court and the Special Intensive Revision process

Context & The Gist

The article addresses the ongoing concerns surrounding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process for cleaning up electoral rolls. The process, aimed at removing duplicate and ineligible voters, has resulted in significant deletions, particularly in states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh. The core issue is whether the SIR process, as implemented, is constitutionally sound and whether it adequately safeguards the principle of universal adult franchise, especially given the lack of updated Census data and the disproportionate impact on female voters.

The article highlights the Supreme Court’s role in attempting to mitigate the damage caused by the SIR’s flaws, but questions whether the Court’s interventions are addressing the root causes of the problem or merely providing temporary relief.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• High Deletion Rates: The SIR process has led to substantial deletions from electoral rolls, raising concerns about disenfranchisement. The rates are particularly high in net in-migrant states.
• Gender Disparity: A concerning trend is the higher rate of deletion of female electors compared to male electors, suggesting a potential bias or systemic issue within the process.
• Lack of Census Data: The absence of updated Census data hinders accurate assessment of the SIR’s impact. Reliance on outdated 2011 figures limits the ability to compare pre- and post-revision data effectively.
• Burden on Electors: The SIR process shifts the burden of proving eligibility onto electors, disproportionately affecting migrant voters and married women who have changed residences.
• SC’s Role & Limitations: The Supreme Court has intervened to ease the burden on voters, but the article suggests this is a reactive measure rather than a proactive solution to the process’s fundamental flaws.
• Political Party Agency: The relatively few complaints filed by political parties are viewed with skepticism, as they operate in a competitive environment that may disincentivize assisting all electors.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Polity: Electoral Processes, Election Commission of India, Constitutional provisions related to elections (Article 324).
• Governance: Issues related to the implementation of government policies, challenges in public service delivery, and the role of institutions.
• Social Issues: Representation of marginalized sections (women, migrants) in the electoral process and potential for disenfranchisement.

Prelims Data Bank

• Article 324: Constitutional provision granting the ECI the power to conduct and supervise elections.
• Election Commission of India (ECI): A constitutional body responsible for conducting free and fair elections in India.
• Universal Adult Franchise: The right to vote for all adult citizens, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.
• Census of India: Conducted every 10 years, provides demographic data crucial for electoral roll revision. The last full census was in 2011.

Mains Critical Analysis

The SIR process, while intended to cleanse electoral rolls, has exposed significant vulnerabilities in India’s electoral system. A PESTLE analysis reveals the following:

• Political: The process has become politicized, with concerns about potential bias and manipulation. The ECI’s actions are under scrutiny, and the Supreme Court’s interventions highlight the lack of trust in the process.
• Economic: The cost of implementing and correcting the SIR process is substantial, diverting resources from other essential electoral functions.
• Social: The disproportionate impact on women and migrant voters raises concerns about social equity and inclusivity.
• Technological: Reliance on outdated technology and flawed software has contributed to the errors and anomalies in the process.
• Legal: The constitutionality of the SIR process is being questioned, and the Supreme Court’s rulings have attempted to address the legal challenges.
• Environmental: (Not directly applicable in this context)

The core issue is the trade-off between ensuring the accuracy of electoral rolls and safeguarding the principle of universal adult franchise. The current process appears to prioritize accuracy at the expense of inclusivity, potentially disenfranchising legitimate voters. A critical gap lies in the lack of a robust and reliable mechanism for verifying voter eligibility, particularly in the absence of updated Census data. The ECI’s reliance on electors to prove their eligibility places an undue burden on citizens and exacerbates existing inequalities.

Value Addition

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark SC judgment established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, which could be relevant in assessing the constitutionality of the SIR process if it fundamentally alters the electoral framework.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case highlighted the importance of free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Constitution.
• ECI’s Powers (Article 324): The ECI derives its powers from Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it the power to supervise, direct, and control elections.

Context & Linkages

This earlier article, published shortly before the current one, already flagged the anomalies in the SIR process, including the deletion of genuine voters and illogical requirements for re-registration. It establishes a continuity of concern regarding the process’s integrity and its potential to undermine the electoral system.

This article highlighted the systemic flaws in the SIR, including the accelerated process and the shift of responsibility onto voters. It builds upon the current article by emphasizing the inadequacy of the appeals process and the lack of transparency in the deletion of voters.

This article detailed the procedural issues plaguing the SIR, such as ad hoc software implementations and suo motu deletions. It reinforces the current article’s critique of the ECI’s implementation and the scale of the deletions.

This article cautioned against rushing the SIR process and highlighted the concerns regarding deletions in states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. It provides a historical context for the current concerns and underscores the need for a more deliberate and cautious approach.

This article discusses the ECI’s focus on removing foreign voters, which, while seemingly legitimate, has been criticized for placing an undue burden on citizens to prove their identity. It adds another layer to the debate surrounding the SIR process and the ECI’s priorities.

The Way Forward

• Conduct a Comprehensive Audit: An independent audit of the SIR process is needed to identify the root causes of the errors and anomalies.
• Prioritize Census Data: The ECI should prioritize the availability of updated Census data for future electoral roll revisions.
• Strengthen Verification Mechanisms: Develop a more robust and reliable mechanism for verifying voter eligibility, minimizing the burden on electors.
• Enhance Transparency: Increase transparency in the deletion process, providing clear reasons for deletions and demographic data.
• Empower Electoral Registration Officers: Strengthen the role of Electoral Registration Officers and provide them with adequate resources and training.
• Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities in the electoral process.