| PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to ‘one nation-one election’ principleLinkage: This question directly links to electoral roll integrity, voter inclusion, and institutional reforms, which are central to the issue of urban disenfranchisement. The article provides contemporary evidence (mass deletions, SIR flaws) that strengthens answers on why electoral reforms are urgently needed in India’s democracy |
Mentor’s Comment
There is a deepening crisis of urban electoral disenfranchisement in India. This has been triggered by the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, where mass deletions of voters, especially urban poor, migrants, and informal workers, have come to light. This is significant because it marks a shift from inclusion (universal adult franchise) to exclusion through bureaucratic processes, The scale is alarming, Patna saw 16.5 lakh deletions, Ghaziabad ~36.67%, Lucknow ~30.88%, and Mumbai ~14 lakh deletions with 50% from informal housing, indicating a systemic pattern rather than isolated errors.
Why is universal adult franchise weakening in urban India?
- Systematic disenfranchisement: Urban voters increasingly excluded through SIR processes; reflects erosion of the constitutional promise of “one person, one vote.”
- Urban marginalisation: Poor, migrants, minorities face structural exclusion; example, large-scale deletions in cities like Patna, Lucknow, Ghaziabad.
- Demographic mismatch: Rapid urban population growth not matched by electoral inclusion; table shows low voter ratios despite rising population.
How does the SIR process contribute to exclusion?
- Bureaucratic enumeration: Relies on documentation and verification; excludes those lacking stable residence proof.
- Limited outreach: Focuses on verification over registration; discourages new voter inclusion.
- Data evidence: Patna (16.5 lakh deletions), Ghaziabad (36.67%), Mumbai (14 lakh deletions) indicate systemic filtering.
Why are migrants and the urban poor disproportionately affected?
- High mobility: Migrants frequently change residences; fail documentation requirements.
- Informal settlements: ~40% of urban population lives in slums; lack formal address proof.
- Dual burden: Unable to register + higher probability of deletion; example, Kolkata (25.62% deletions in unorganised workers).
Does electoral secrecy face new challenges in urban settings?
- Booth-level disclosure risk: Small booth sizes enable inference of voting patterns.
- Technological vulnerability: Electronic voting systems may reveal demographic voting trends.
- Urban concentration: Tight clusters make secrecy harder compared to dispersed rural booths.
Is there evidence of selective filtration in electoral rolls?
- Selective exclusion: Groups perceived as politically inconvenient may be filtered out.
- Documentation bias: Rigid criteria disproportionately impact working-class populations.
- Case evidence: Lucknow (30.88%), Ghaziabad (36.67%) deletions linked to migrant workforce mobility.
How does urbanisation intensify electoral challenges?
- Migration-driven growth: Continuous inflow disrupts stable voter registration systems.
- Administrative lag: Electoral systems based on static populations fail dynamic urban contexts.
- Comparative gap: Rural areas show relatively stable rolls vs volatile urban deletions.
Conclusion
Urban electoral disenfranchisement represents a structural contradiction between constitutional ideals and administrative practices. If left unaddressed, it risks weakening democratic legitimacy, particularly in rapidly urbanising India. Electoral reforms must shift from documentation-centric exclusion to inclusion-oriented governance, ensuring that mobility does not become a ground for loss of citizenship rights.
