Editorial: Hasty move on Special Intensive Revision
The Election Commission of India’s decision to rush ahead with the second SIR, despite the process still being under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny, is uncalled for
At a time when the fundamental legal questions involving the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar are still under scrutiny by the Supreme Court, one wonders why the Election Commission is going ahead with the second phase of the SIR in other parts of the country. The poll panel’s announcement that the second phase would cover around 51 crore voters in nine States and three Union Territories has understandably drawn flak from opposition parties. The EC must first clear the air in the wake of widespread allegations over the SIR process in Bihar before expanding the exercise to other States. The poll panel’s conduct has come under a cloud because of the manner in which it went about the process in Bihar. Now that it has given itself just three months to complete the second phase of the exercise, it is bound to face a slew of challenges, going by the Bihar experience. The sharp reaction of opposition parties underscores the urgent need for transparency, neutrality and accountability throughout the entire process. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has stated that the upcoming SIR is part of a long-overdue nationwide clean-up of voter lists; the last such a comprehensive revision took place two decades ago. While there should be no disagreement about the need for revision of electoral rolls as mandated under the Constitution, it is the manner in which the EC has been conducting the process that has raised concerns.
There are genuine concerns that it could lead to mass disenfranchisement, especially among marginalised groups such as migrant labourers, women, and the poor. This negates the very purpose of democracy, which is to facilitate accessibility, not raise barriers. The Congress, CPI(M), Trinamool Congress, and other parties apprehend that the SIR may be used to disenfranchise genuine voters — particularly minorities, Dalits, and backward classes — under the guise of identifying illegitimate voters. It is still not known how effective the Bihar exercise has been in weeding out illegal immigrants. The petitioners challenging the Bihar SIR have claimed that it violated voters’ rights, breached voting laws, and wrongly requires existing voters to prove citizenship. The EC, however, cites plenary powers granted under Article 324 to undertake the exercise. When faced with allegations of ‘vote chori’ and other malpractices, the EC has, unfortunately, responded with partisan comments instead of hard evidence. It must be pointed out that the fairness of the electoral process is an essential ingredient of a successful democratic system. Though the court did not stay the Bihar SIR exercise, it made several timely interventions to infuse greater transparency into the process. Importantly, it ordered the inclusion of Aadhaar as a document of proof. There is no hurry in rolling out the second special intensive revision, when the apex court has agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the SIR exercise from November 4.
