Epic failures

Why in the News

Identifying beneficiaries and making payments under the Panchayati Raj Ministry’s schemes will move from Aadhaar to voter identity cards with biometric authentication, the Union Panchayati Raj Minister has said. This would make electoral rolls, revised through the contested Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the dataset for deciding who gets welfare, against the Supreme Court’s own rulings on that exercise.

Why can a voter card not decide welfare?

1. EPIC: The Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is the voter card given to those on the roll. Like a membership card, it only proves the holder is on a list.
2. What Aadhaar does now: Aadhaar, a biometric identity number, is the present basis on which the Ministry identifies beneficiaries and makes payments.
3. Voters versus beneficiaries: Not every citizen is an eligible voter, so tying benefits to the roll is illogical and harsh. The move also runs contrary to existing laws and regulations.
4. The takeaway: Using a voter list to ration welfare would carry every error in the roll into people’s food rations and pensions.

What has the Supreme Court said about the SIR?

1. Limited enquiry: In its May 27 Bihar SIR judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) only a “limited enquiry” into citizenship when preparing the roll.
2. Electoral consequences only: Action under that enquiry is “confined to electoral consequences alone”. Deletion affects only a person’s place on the roll and the right to vote.
3. Derivative document: The Court called the EPIC “a derivative document”, issued on inclusion in the roll. Using it to verify that same roll would defeat the exercise.
4. West Bengal welfare orders: The Court has also heard petitions against West Bengal’s orders removing SIR-deleted persons from the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Annapurna Yojana.

Why are the revised rolls an unreliable base?

1. Logical discrepancies: In West Bengal, lakhs of names were deleted, many for dubious “logical discrepancies”, meaning mismatches flagged in an elector’s records.
2. Restored on appeal: 93% of the reinstatement appeals heard led to names being restored by September 2026, which points to large-scale disenfranchisement before the election.
3. Method not yet tested: The Court has said it is yet to rule on the legality of the ECI’s logical discrepancies method.
4. Strict residency criteria: The SIR set stringent residency criteria, so itinerant voters had to prove eligibility. The Opposition, civil society and some allies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party objected.

Is the shift part of a wider design?

1. Pruned rolls and welfare: The move is read as using pruned rolls to limit welfare at a time when growth in tax revenues has slowed.
2. Pattern of decisions: The delayed Census, the changed procedure for appointing Election Commissioners and the SIR’s deletions are read as steps that weaken the constitutional welfare state.
3. Unacknowledged flaws: The ruling party has not acknowledged the SIR’s flaws. Its silence is attributed partly to gains from disenfranchisement, as in West Bengal.

Challenges

1. Eligible non-voters excluded: Citizens entitled to welfare but not on the roll would lose a route to their benefits.
2. Errors carried into welfare: A wrongful deletion from the roll would directly cut a family off rations or pensions.
3. Mixed purposes: A list built to decide the right to vote would be made to decide the right to welfare.

Way Forward

1. Early verdict: The Supreme Court should decide the pending petitions against the SIR quickly.
2. Clear judicial bar: The Court should reiterate that electoral rolls cannot be used to curtail welfare.
3. Separate welfare identity: Ministries should keep verifying beneficiaries through welfare identity systems, not voter lists.

Conclusion

An electoral roll certifies only the right to vote. Whether the Supreme Court settles the SIR petitions before ministries begin vetting beneficiaries through voter cards will decide if a voter list becomes a welfare filter.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2020] Consider the following statements: 1. Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months. 2. State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data. 3. Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products. 4. Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 4 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 only ANSWER: (b)”