Latest news with #RegistrationofElectorsRules
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bihar's electoral roll revision: Are we shifting from inclusive citizenship to identity-based exclusion?
The recent controversy regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls is indicative of the fading institutional boundaries in contemporary India. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is mandated under Article 324 to revise electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 authorises the ECI to conduct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of the constituency. Similarly, Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 authorises the ECI to conduct an intensive revision of electoral rolls. However, the present order of the ECI brings in the new concept of Special Intensive Revision (SIR). In the domain of citizenship rights, we are moving from jus soli (citizenship by birth) towards jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline). Further, this movement is insisting more on technicalities/documentations, which are affecting the vulnerable sections. The recent Bihar caste survey showed that 63 per cent of the population are backward or extremely backward, and 73 per cent of Muslims are backward. Many of these people are now afraid to be declared illegal migrants. In India, historically, due to migration, different cultural identities have gained their own cultural and political space, creating a multicultural society. In the pre-Independence period, the citizenship debate divided the cultural nationalists and political nationalists. Leaders like V D Savarkar linked citizenship to cultural roots. Based on this, he denied equal citizenship to any community whose punya bhoomi (holy land) is situated outside India. The Constituent Assembly of India, however, deliberated on the issue and gave citizenship — through Article 5 — to those who were born in India or resided in the country for at least five years before the commencement of the Constitution and had not acquired citizenship of any foreign country. Through Article 6 (which later became Article 11), it empowered Parliament to make provisions regarding all matters related to citizenship. The Citizenship Act, 1955, removed the provision of citizenship by birth for those born after January 26, 1950, on the condition that any one of the parents should be an Indian citizen. The Assam Accord in 1985 inserted Assam-specific section 6A, which allowed those who migrated between 1966 and 1971 to be registered as foreigners. Those who migrated after 1971 were considered illegal migrants. Through the 1987 amendment, the state gave citizenship based on the principle of jus soli to those who were born before 1987. However, those who were born in and after 1987 were given citizenship based on jus sanguinis. According to the 2003 amendment, the citizenship of a person born after or in 2003 depends on whether both of her parents are already Indian citizens. If not, at least one of them must be Indian, and the other shouldn't be an illegal immigrant. In the year 2024, the Citizenship Rules, 1956, were amended. It openly mentioned the religious identity of the immigrants. Section 8A of the amended rules empowered the collector of a district, in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to register minority Hindus with Pakistani citizenship, who have migrated to India more than five years ago with an intention to settle down permanently, as citizens of India. The 2024 amendment, by bringing in religious identity for acquiring citizenship, has defied the secular outlook of Article 7 of the Constitution, which deals with people who have migrated from Pakistan to India, without mentioning any religion. In 2015, two significant amendments were made to the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. Both are precursors to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. It further institutionalised this religion-based exclusion by making it easier for a certain group of people to get Indian citizenship based on their religious identity. The current SIR of ECI appears to establish hierarchy in citizenship. The Indian Constitution has served as a significant obstacle to such a shift towards cultural identity-based citizenship. We need critical engagement with the constitutional framework to promote inclusive citizenship norms rooted in political identity rather than cultural identity. The writer teaches at Christ University. Views are personal
Time of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'To protect integrity of electoral rolls': EC to launch Special Intensive Revision nationwide; schedule to be out soon
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has announced plans to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country. In an order dated June 24, the poll stated it is undertaking the revision as part of its constitutional duty to safeguard the integrity of the voter lists. "The Commission has now decided to begin the Special Intensive Revision in the entire country for the discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of electoral rolls," the order read. "Maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll is fundamental for the conduct of free and fair elections; the electoral machinery, eligibility conditions, manner and procedure for preparation of electoral rolls are provided under the RPA 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 ("RER, 1960"), framed under the RPA 1950," the order read. The detailed schedule for the nationwide exercise will be released in due course, the Commission added. The announcement comes amidst uproar by the Opposition over SIR in Bihar. Former Bihar deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav has on several instances slammed the process and has hinted at boycotting the upcoming polls in the state. The chaos has also reached the Parliament with the protests disrupting the proceedings of the monsoon session for four straight days. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Paras Sector 59 Gurgaon | Luxury Awaits at Paras Floret Paras The Florett Book Now Undo The Election Commission had earlier said that the revision aims to remove duplicate and ineligible voters, especially those registered at both permanent and current addresses. Migrants need not worry—descendants of voters listed in 2003 require no ancestry proof. This is a developing story. Details to follow...
The Wire
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
EC ‘Subjecting 2.9 Cr Voters to Rigorous Exercise to Identify Handful Illegal Immigrants': Ex-CEC O.P. Rawat on Bihar SIR
As the Election Commission of India's contentious revision of electoral rolls in Bihar through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise continues to purify voter rolls and weed out illegal immigrants, former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat has said that subjecting 2.9 crore voters to this rigorous exercise 'just to identify a handful of illegal immigrants, this close to the assembly elections is not good.' On June 24 the EC issued instructions for holding SIR in Bihar, stating that the last such exercise was conducted in the state in 2003. The commission, in announcing the house-to-house verification exercise, said that it had been necessitated due to various reasons, among which was the inclusion of 'foreign illegal immigrants' in the electoral roll. In an interview to The Wire, Rawat who served as CEC from January 23 to December 1, 2018, said that while the exercise being conducted by the poll body will help in identifying illegal immigrants, an intensive revision was not necessary for this purpose. 'For identifying illegal immigrants and purifying electoral rolls of these illegal immigrants, the law provides a very easy solution,' said Rawat. 'Throwing crores of voters (into this exercise) just for identifying a handful of illegal immigrants – that is not good. That's the main issue that 2.9 crore voters are subjected to this rigorous exercise where they feel hopeless just to identify a few illegal immigrants. You can identify them separately and you can do that continuously and law provides that. So, for that purpose going for intensive revision and subjecting crores of people to this kind of exercise this close to the election, I don't think this is good.' Read excerpts from the interview: 1) This is the first time that the EC seems to be conducting the SIR. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, speaks about intensive, summary and partly intensively and partly summarily. The Election Commission's website on the other hand lists a fourth kind, called the Special Summary Revision. Is this a new exercise that the commission is doing? Under the law there are only two types of revision – summary and intensive. 'Special' is added by the Election Commission when they do not conform to the template of the revision under the law but tinker with certain elements. Intensive means house to house surveys, filling up of the forms by the BLO, among others. Since all those things have been done away with – basically pre-filled forms are being distributed – they are calling it a Special Intensive Revision. Same thing for summary revision where the general summary revision, according to the law, is that you publish the draft roll and call for claims, objections, applications within 30 days and adjudicate it in 30 days and then publish the final roll. But at times this is not available. So, they call it a special summary revision and do a truncated exercise. Special is only that much in that if it is not exhaustively having all characteristics of that revision it will be called 'special'. So they are almost the same. Not that much difference. Questions have been raised about the timing of the Bihar SIR and its proximity to the assembly elections. Is that a cause of concern? Three months is the time required for any revision. The timeline is: issue order, publish draft, call for claims and objections, hear them and then publish final rolls. In this case, after the final publication before the election, there is a very short window of one and a half months or two months. That is a cause for concern because whenever intensive revision was conducted in the past, elections were about a year or more away. So any grievance about exclusion or inclusion could get redressal through an appeal forum. But this time this gap is only 1.5 months. Our appeals fora are not that efficient in that they will dispose of all appeals in two or three days or even 15 days. They may take months. That is why there was panic among the people. Opposition parties in Bihar have said that a large part of Bihar's population are migrant workers and a lot of this exercise is digital where forms are meant to be downloaded for those who are outside the state. Could this exercise have been conducted in a manner that would ensure their inclusion? Bihar's migration is of two different types. Major migration takes place after the Kharif crop is harvested, after October-November, and they do not migrate before that. But there are people who have already migrated to Mumbai, Delhi or other big towns but want to keep their enrollment at home. These people were facing difficulty, so the Election Commission has facilitated them by saying that you can use your phone to upload your enumeration form online and the documents that you want to submit. Those born after 2004 are being asked to furnish proof of citizenship for themselves and their parents. Is this a departure from the previous intensive revisions? I cannot compare with the 2003 revision order as I did not have access to it. But earlier intensive revisions had different templates – something added, something subtracted – no two can be similar. A contentious part of this exercise is that existing electors will also have to prove their citizenship. Is that ordinarily part of intensive revisions? Everyone has to be verified under intensive revisions. But this time, the Election Commission made a distinction: because time was short, they thought it prudent that all those who find their name in the 2003 roles (when the last intensive revision was conducted) need not submit any proof. They will be deemed citizens and they can submit their enumeration forms along with the reference to the 2003 rolls and that will be good enough. These people are about 65% which means about 5 crores. But as a necessary corollary, the remaining 2.97 crores they are required to prove their citizenship and this being a very huge number, Election Commission also relaxed this. On July 6, they issued an advertisement in Bihar that even those who do not find their name in 2003 electoral rolls can submit their forms without any document (from the list of 11) which can be submitted later but before August 30. That has facilitated these people. BJP ally TDP, in its letter to the Election Commission, has said that any future SIR should make it explicitly clear that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification. The exercise being conducted now is alleged to be a citizenship verification exercise and not purification of electoral rolls. How do you see this? In a way, they are right because in 1995, the Supreme Court said in a case concerning the Election Commission that investigating, certifying or issuing orders about citizenship including deportations all lie in the domain of the home ministry and nobody else has the authority to do these kinds of activities. This was also mentioned during the Supreme Court hearing recently. There is a slight contradiction here because Article 326 says that all Indian citizens who are above the age 18 (earlier 21) will have the right to vote and enrol in the electoral rolls. Since this Article says 'all Indian citizens', the Election Commission's mandate is to enrol them. Unless they know the citizenship status how can they enrol? But the other side says that the Election Commission themselves – keeping in view the 1995 judgement of the Supreme Court – in their application for enrolment in Form 6 have not asked for any proof of citizenship and have only asked for a declaration (of being a citizen). And that declaration was taken as proof of citizenship. The Election Commission has the authority that if something is wrong prima facie with the citizenship status they could find out, collect evidence and then take legal action for false declaration. But not for investigating citizenship. This examination of citizenship in this exercise is a new development compared to previous exercises – that now the burden of proof is on the individual to prove that they are a citizen as opposed to earlier? That is a fact. The Election Commission always used to proactively enrol people without much ado about citizenship. Even in this intensive revision, Form 6 is being submitted with the declaration being enough. It seems to be a dichotomy that new registration is based on Form 6, whereas all those who are already there on the electoral roll have to submit proof. Since the proof was not available easily and time was running out so the Election Commission themselves relaxed it and said that submit the enumeration form and proof can be given later extending time to August 30. So that is a problem area. If time (for this exercise) was a year or year and half, there would have been no hue and cry. Time is short, elections are round the corner. These documents cannot be easily procured, as it is also the season of floods and heavy rain. EC said through sources that illegal immigrants from Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh have been found through this exercise. But in 2019, the EC told parliament that only three instances of 'foreign nationals' on electoral rolls were found. Is the purification of electoral rolls going to help weed out illegal immigrants in this manner? It will help. But for identifying illegal immigrants and purifying electoral rolls of these illegal immigrants, law provides a very easy solution. Collect the prima facie evidence, issue show cause notice, ask for their reply and evidence and if you are not satisfied give them personal hearing and if you are still not satisfied delete their names. This exercise in many states goes on continuously without waiting for any revision. If you are worried about illegal immigrants, then this exercise should be made standing instruction that every state will continue this exercise of identifying and deleting their names. Because EC does this exercise for identifying migrated voters, dead voters or duplicate voters, by using different software like de-duplication software, photo recognition software – all those things are with the Election Commission and they have been doing it. Throwing crores of voters just for identifying a handful of illegal immigrants – that is not good. That is the main issue that 2.9 crore voters are subjected to this rigorous exercise where they feel hopeless just to identify a few illegal immigrants. You can identify them separately and you can do that continuously and law provides that. So, for that purpose going for intensive revision and subjecting crores of people to this kind of exercise, this close to the election, I don't think this is good.
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Template set for changes in Form 6 & 8 ahead of nationwide SIR
Amid the Special Intensive Revision ( SIR ) in Bihar, the Election Commission has made a significant change to document requirements not just for existing electors but also new electors and electors shifting their residence- a change that may be effected across the country. Both the categories in Bihar-- new electors and electors shifting from outside the state -- must give parental proof of birth now through a special 'declaration form', as per ECI's SIR instructions of June 24. With this, the stage is likely set for a full shift in Form 6 and 8 requirements across the country, especially as the poll panel has announced its intent to extend the revision to all states. The same, officials indicated, may require an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules to take it nationwide, a decision likely to be taken as the Bihar SIR nears completion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Doctors Are Stunned: This Patch Targets Stubborn Belly Fat Overnight Today's Health Insight Learn More Undo Under Rules 13(1) and (26) the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 6 is the prescribed application form for registering new voters. So far, a new voter had to provide only his own proof of birth and residence with Form 6. Live Events As per rules 13(3) and (26) of the 1960 Rulebook, Form 8 is the Voter Application Form for shifting of residence/correction of entries in existing electoral roll/ replacement of EPIC/marking of persons with disability. For the same, an applicant must currently furnish a self-attested copy of address proof. However, in its June 24 instructions, the ECI has stated that 'in case of application for registration as a new elector or for shifting from outside the state', a person will have to fill an 'additional Declaration Form' along with Form 6/Form 8 in Bihar. The Declaration Form is essentially the same as given in the new Enumeration Form distributed to all electors in Bihar and it comes with the same categorisation -- to identify those born between 1987 and 2004 and those born after 2004. Besides their own proof of birth, the latter two categories are to provide proof of birth of one parent and both parents respectively. The document of proof can be any one of the 11 documents EC has stipulated for existing electors in Bihar-Aadhaar, ration cards are not included. In effect, just as the SIR is bringing in the existing electoral roll in Bihar in sync with the requirements under Section 3 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003, it is also ensuring every new voter and those shifting into the state are also aligned with the same.
Time of India
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
JMM urges SC to declare SIR unconstitutional
Dharwad: The Janandolan Maha Maitri (JMM), a branch of National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources (NCPNR), has criticised the Election Commission of India for taking up SIR (Special Intensive Revision) in Bihar and has termed it as an ill-advised move. Speaking to media in Dharwad JMM chief and anti-graft activist SR Hiremath urged the Supreme Court of India to declare SIR as unconstitutional and uphold the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. He stated that SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as it contravenes the provisions of the Representation of the People's Act, 1950, and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. If SIR is not set aside by the SC, it can arbitrarily and without due process disenfranchise crores of voters (as much as 30 to 50% of the country) from electing their representatives, thereby disrupting free and fair elections and democracy in the country, which are part of basic structure of the Constitution, Hiremath said. "This would be totally against the bold experiment of Universal Franchise pledged by our Founding Fathers, who enshrined it in Constitution will be negated. It is important to identify and expose the powers that be, who have made the ECI do this 'retrograde' and 'dangerous move' of the ECI," he added. Dropping land acquisition The JMM, Citizens for Democracy (CFD) and NCPNR fully support the satyagraha of the 13 villages of Channapattana Hobli (Devanahalli Taluka, Bengaluru Rural Dist) 'Bhoo Swadheena Virodhi Horata' and call upon the state govt and the chief minister, who when in the opposition, had promised that, if voted to power, they would cancel the acquisition proceedings of the KIADB to acquire 1,777 acres of fertile lands of the farmers in 13 villages. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo "Siddaramaiah reiterated his promise to the Samyukta Horata members during a meeting, that he would need additional time until July 15 to overcome legal hurdles and confirming the next meeting. The govt should quash the land acquisition process and protect the interests of the farmers by protecting their fertile lands", Hiremath demanded.
