Why in the News?

Recently, the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of the citizenship verification process being carried out as part of the voter list revision in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Why is the demand for citizenship proof for existing voters controversial?

• Burden shifts to already registered voters: The SIR process forces existing electors—who were added through due process—to resubmit proof of citizenship, treating them with suspicion. Eg: A voter registered in 2010 using valid documents must now provide fresh documents, despite no change in their status.
• Lack of evidence for illegal migrants in voter rolls: The ECI affidavit does not provide data on the presence of foreign nationals or illegal migrants in electoral rolls, especially in Bihar, weakening the justification for a blanket citizenship test. Eg: Over 600 pages of complaints attached to ECI’s affidavit did not cite any case of foreigner inclusion in Bihar’s voter list.
• No legal rule for asking voters to prove citizenship: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 does not require voters to give proof of citizenship. There are already legal ways to remove non-citizens from the voter list if someone complains with proof. So, asking all voters to show documents again is unnecessary and legally doubtful.

How is SIR similar to or different from the Assam NRC?

• Similarities:

• • Both involve citizenship verification based on documentary evidence.
  • Both processes have significant exclusion risks and logistical challenges.
  • The CAA 2003-based criteria used in NRC Assam are being replicated in Bihar SIR (e.g., birth dates of voters and parents).

• Differences:

• • The NRC in Assam was conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court, based on a specific clause in the Assam Accord.
  • The SIR in Bihar is being conducted by the ECI independently, without a similar legal precedent or court mandate.
  • NRC was formally initiated by the Registrar General of India, which has not happened for a nationwide NRC; SIR lacks such authority.

What are the implications of using the 2003 electoral roll as a baseline?

• Creates legal inconsistency: Prioritising the 2003 electoral roll over rolls from the last two decades undermines the validity of later voter lists, creating legal confusion and questions of equal treatment for all voters.
• Lacks evidence of reliability: The ECI affidavit does not provide proof that the 2003 SIR involved thorough citizenship verification. Without such evidence, treating the 2003 roll as more authentic is unjustified.
• Grants unequal advantage: Voters listed in 2003 and their children are exempted from submitting documents, while others must provide multiple proofs, leading to discrimination and inequity in the revision process.

Why are documents like Aadhaar and ration cards being rejected in the SIR process?

• Aadhaar not considered proof of citizenship: The ECI argues that while Aadhaar can confirm identity and residence, it does not prove Indian citizenship.
• Ration cards seen as forgery-prone: The ECI claims that many fake ration cards exist and hence rejects them as valid proof.

Way forward: 

• Adopt a targeted verification approach: Instead of a blanket citizenship test for all voters, the ECI should focus on specific complaints supported by evidence, using existing legal mechanisms to identify and remove ineligible voters. This ensures efficiency, legal compliance, and avoids harassment of genuine voters.
• Accept a broader range of documents with safeguards: The ECI should allow widely held documents like Aadhaar and ration cards as supporting evidence, along with robust verification procedures to detect forgeries. This promotes inclusivity, especially for marginalised groups, while maintaining the integrity of the electoral rolls.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.

Linkage: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, which is the subject of the ECI’s counter affidavit, is presented as an effort to refine electoral rolls, inherently linking it to the broader discourse on electoral reforms in India. The article critically evaluates the ECI’s rationale and legal arguments for undertaking such an intensive revision, which the ECI seems to position as a measure to address typical defects like duplication and non-deletion, and implicitly, to ensure the integrity of the voter list.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now