Latest news with #SukumarSen
The Hindu
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Nudges from the Court, silence from the commission
The Supreme Court of India speaks in questions. Sometimes softly, sometimes sharply. In its hearings on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar, the Court has asked what many in the country were thinking: Why was there a sudden need for fresh documentation? Why now? And what happens to the millions who cannot comply? Yet, the Court got a response from the ECI that did not address the underlying concern. The ECI insists that this is a technical revision. But the reality on the ground, and the implications of its policy, tell a very different story. The SIR in Bihar requires every voter to submit new proof of citizenship — within one month — or face removal from the voter list. The stated intent is accuracy. But the effect is exclusion. This is not administrative housekeeping. It is an ideological shift in the treatment of citizens: from presumed inclusion to presumptive exclusion. This shift marks a deep departure from the constitutional vision of universal adult franchise. Also Read | Mass inclusion, and not exclusion, should be the goal of the Bihar SIR, says Supreme Court Turning away from constitutional promises When India became a republic, it did something radical: it gave the vote to all adults, regardless of literacy, income, caste or gender. The Constituent Assembly debated this extensively. Many Members doubted whether the country was ready. But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, among others, insisted that political equality must come first as a prelude to achieving social and economic equality. That principle was translated into practice by the first Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Sukumar Sen (March 21, 1950-December 18, 1958). Faced with 173 million potential voters, most of them illiterate, he innovated. He introduced voting symbols and designed processes that made participation easy, not difficult. India's first elections were not perfect, but they were inclusive. In contrast, the revision in Bihar by India's 26th CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, is the opposite. By demanding rare documents such as birth certificates and passports — held by only a small fraction of the population, the ECI is setting a bar that millions cannot meet. Aadhaar cards and ration cards, widely held by the poor, are not accepted. In Bihar, over 65 lakh people may now be at risk of disenfranchisement. This is not an isolated event. We saw a similar exercise in Assam. The classification of lungi-wearing, Bengali-speaking Muslim inhabitants as 'D-voters' (doubtful voters) by the officers of the Election Commission, turned thousands into stateless persons. Many found themselves pleading before foreigners' tribunals, facing hostile bureaucracies and with no real opportunity to prove citizenship. With tribunals declaring them as foreigners and with no country ready to accept them, many have been just forcibly thrown away across India's borders, as unwanted human detritus. Bihar is at risk of repeating that mistake. The State is poor, flood-prone, and infrastructurally weak. A rigid document deadline during the monsoon season is not just poor planning. It is a barrier, intentionally or otherwise, for the poor and the marginalised to access the ballot box . The burden of proof has now shifted. Citizens must prove that they belong, rather than the state proving they do not. This reversal may seem technical, but its moral and democratic cost is immense. Also Read | In Bihar SIR challenge, Supreme Court refers to 1977 verdict on Election Commission's powers Historical lessons and warnings There are disturbing echoes here of the Jim Crow era in the United States (late 19th century to the mid-20th century), where African-American voters were disenfranchised through literacy tests, poll taxes and administrative obstructions. The veneer was legal; the purpose was political. It took federal intervention and landmark rulings such as Reynolds vs Sims (1964) and the Voting Rights Act 1965 to restore the right to vote as a true universal right. India has similar legal protections. Supreme Court rulings such as Md. Rahim Ali vs State of Assam (2024) and Lal Babu Hussein vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995) have made it clear: disenfranchisement without due process is unconstitutional. Citizenship cannot be revoked or denied arbitrarily. Yet, here we are again — requiring the most vulnerable to navigate a process stacked against them. The Court, during its hearing, asked pointed questions about the humanitarian consequences of the ECI's actions. But the ECI's response has been administrative, not empathetic. It continues to insist on timelines and technicalities, without addressing the social reality. The ECI's constitutional mandate is not merely to maintain clean lists. It is to ensure free and fair elections. This means enabling the right to vote — not erecting barriers to it. In this, the ECI is failing. And the Court, while alert, must decide whether it will continue nudging it or start directing it. A soft caution is not enough when millions face disenfranchisement. If this continues unchecked, we are entering dangerous territory. Voting could become a privilege of the documented middle class — urban, salaried, tech-savvy — while the poor, the displaced, and the undocumented are left behind. We risk creating two Indias: one with voting rights and one without. Political parties will then cater only to those who count — literally. Those without votes will be ignored in policymaking, welfare and justice. We are not just talking about voter lists here. We are talking about power — Who gets it. Who keeps it. And who is kept out of it. Also Read | The need to safeguard the right to vote A quiet Emergency There is no need for tanks on the street to declare an emergency. A quiet one is already here. It arrives through missing names, unmet deadlines and unanswered questions. It arrives when state machinery treats citizenship as a favour, not a right. This moment calls for resistance — not just from the Court, but from citizens, civil society and Parliament. We must reclaim the principle that the right to vote belongs to the people, not the paperwork. Sadak, samaj and Supreme Court must loudly proclaim that Mother India belongs to all her children and that she does not discriminate on a religious or economic basis when her protection is sought. As historian Ornit Shani reminds us in the book, How India Became Democratic, universal franchise was not an administrative accident, it was an imaginative leap. Bureaucrats and citizens together transformed a colonial mindset into a democratic one. That achievement must not be undone in the name of vigilance. The ECI must remember that elections are not entrance examinations. They are acts of belonging. And in a democracy, you do not have to prove you belong. You vote because you are a citizen. And you are a citizen because the Constitution says so, not because you can find your birth certificate. The vote is not a mere document. It is a declaration: that we are all equal. That one man has one vote and one vote has one value. That even if I have one vote out of 1.4 billion votes, it is an equal share in the republic, in which I and every Indian are equal participants. That right of ownership and participation is what is now at stake. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate designated by the Supreme Court of India
Indian Express
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
History Headline: How EC prepared electoral rolls for free India's first polls
The confusion on the ground that has marked the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar brings to mind the mammoth task involved in preparing the electoral rolls for the 1952 election. With a population of approximately 34.8 crore and given the widespread illiteracy, diverse geographical terrain, and the aftermath of the Partition, creating accurate electoral rolls was a tough administrative task. In July 1947 itself, the Constituent Assembly had decided to grant voting rights to every citizen aged 21 or older, a bold commitment to universal adult suffrage for a young nation. By March 1948, the Assembly Secretariat issued detailed directions to states for preparing draft electoral rolls. These directions specified eligibility criteria: voters had to be Indian citizens, at least 21 years old as of January 1, 1949, and residents of a village or electoral unit for at least 180 days in the year ending March 31, 1948. Since delimitation was yet to be initiated, the rolls were organised village-wise to facilitate later segregation into constituencies once boundaries were defined. Enumerators conducted house-to-house inquiries, using house numbers listed in the 1941 Census and assigned supplementary numbers to new premises. The details sought for the proposed rolls included: the voter's name, parent or spouse's name, address, sex, age, and, religion or caste to determine eligibility for reserved seats for Muslims, Christians, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. The Constituent Assembly had initially considered reserving seats for Muslims and Christians, apart from SCs and STs. However, in May 1949, the Assembly reversed its plan to reserve seats for Muslims and Christians. Consequently, states were directed to remove these details from the rolls. One of the key challenges for the enumerators was to register displaced persons. States were advised to include these individuals based on a simple declaration of their intent to reside permanently in India, regardless of their actual residency period. This pragmatic approach ensured the inclusion of refugees, many of whom lacked documentation due to the chaos of Partition and the resultant influx of refugees from West Punjab and East Bengal in the newly created Pakistan. In July 1948, the Constituent Assembly publicised the voter enumeration process with January 1, 1949, as the reference date for the electoral rolls. EC reports say the pace of the exercise varied across states, with some advancing rapidly while others lagged due to logistical and other reasons. The Constitution's provisions on citizenship and the establishment of the Election Commission of India took effect on November 26, 1949, with the full Constitution of India enforced on January 26, 1950. The Election Commission of India (ECI) was established on January 25, 1950, with Sukumar Sen appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner. Operating as a single-member body, the ECI took full control of the electoral process after that. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, enacted in April that year, provided the legal framework for voter qualifications and roll preparation. However, it introduced changes that invalidated the rolls that had been prepared until then. The qualifying date for the minimum age of voting was shifted to March 1, 1950, and the residency period was changed from April 1, 1947, to December 31, 1949. These changes necessitated extensive revisions to include newly eligible voters and rectify errors. Now, with the new law in hand, the ECI directed state governments to prepare supplementary rolls to list voters who might have turned 21 years between January 1949 and March 1950 or may have met the new residency criteria. Special provisions were made for armed forces personnel and certain government employees, whose names were listed separately to facilitate postal voting. The ECI ordered the informal publication of the draft rolls in May 1950, making them accessible at important government offices. By November 1950, most Part-A states had published preliminary rolls, except for West Bengal, Punjab, Bihar and Orissa. Due to these delays, the ECI kept extending the date for filing claims and objections, ultimately fixing December 23, 1950. A big challenge was to register displaced persons, particularly in Punjab, West Bengal, Delhi, and Assam. The inclusion of marginalised groups, such as women and Scheduled Castes, required innovative approaches. Many women, particularly in rural areas, were reluctant to provide their names, often registering under their husband's or father's name. The final delimitation report by the Election Commission was completed by August 1951, enabling the final publication of rolls. The final publication of the voter rolls began in September 1951, with the last rolls published on November 15, 1951. The final electoral rolls included 17.32 crore voters (excluding J&K), approximately 49 per cent of the country's population of 35.67 crore (excluding J&K). With an adult population (over 21 years of age) of about 18.03 crore, the enrollment was nearly 96 per cent. Even in the face of the most daunting challenges, the EC had thus pulled off the electoral rolls exercise, taking utmost care to ensure that no eligible voter was left out. The writer is Senior Associate Editor, The Indian Express
Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on first General Elections to the Lok Sabha, Ashok Pahwa Committee and more (Week 110)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of daily subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Polity and Governance to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for April 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at With reference to the first General Elections to the Lok Sabha, consider the following statements: 1. It was conducted over four months in 1951-52. 2. The first elections were conducted when Sukumar Sen was the Chief Election Commissioner. 3. The first Lok Sabha had multiple-member constituencies. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — India's first Lok Sabha election, conducted over four months in 1951-52, began the democratic process by which the reins of the newly independent nation were put in the hands of its people. Votes were cast for 489 Lok Sabha and 3,283 state Assembly seats around the country. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — The office of the Election Commission of India (ECI) was set up on January 25, 1950. Sukumar Sen, an officer of the Indian Civil Service and a former Chief Secretary of West Bengal, became Chief Election Commissioner on March 21, 1950. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — The ballot papers were the size of a Re 1 currency note. They were pink in colour, with 'Election Commission India' inscribed on them. They displayed a serial number with two letters of the alphabet denoting the state — BR for Bihar, AS for Assam, etc. — The ballots also had serial numbers printed in black, and the national crest in white. The papers for Lok Sabha elections had a thick vertical bar of olive green colour; those for state Assemblies had a chocolate-coloured bar. — The first Lok Sabha also had multiple-member constituencies, a practice that was done away with in the elections of 1962. Under this, some constituencies returned two members — one from the general category, another from the SC or ST categories — and, in one constituency, all three categories returned one member each. Hence, statement 3 is correct. — The ECI had granted 14 parties the status of 'national parties', and designated more than 50 parties as 'state parties'. After the elections, only the Congress, Praja Socialist Party (formed with the merger of the Socialist Party and KMPP), CPI, and BJS were able to retain their national party status. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. The provisions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are: 1. to assemble peaceably and with arms 2. to form unions 3. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India 4. to carry on any occupation Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 2 and 4 only Explanation — Article 19 of the Constitution of India provides for the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. — All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (f) to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. However, this right was omitted by the 44th amendment to the Constitution. (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. (Other Source: Constitution of India) With reference to the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs, consider the following statements: 1. It was first constituted in 1949. 2. Before 1954, the Ministry of Defence was providing secretarial assistance to the committee. 3. Its function is to watch the progress of Government Business in Parliament and to give such directions as may be necessary from time to time. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 only (c) 2 only (d) 1 and 3 only Explanation — With the establishment of a bicameral Parliament composed of multiple representatives of the people, it was believed appropriate for the Cabinet to transfer overall responsibility for detailed parliamentary concerns to a small standing committee of the Cabinet that specialised in this duty. — A Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Committee was established in 1949. This body was eventually renamed the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. Since 1954, the committee has had secretarial assistance from the then-Department of Parliamentary Affairs, which is now the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — Prior to 1954, the Ministry of Law provided secretarial support to the committee, though the then-Department of Parliamentary Affairs also offered secretarial aid for the organisation of Government Business in both Houses of Parliament. Hence, statement 2 is not correct. — The following functions have been assigned to the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs: (i) To watch the progress of Government Business in Parliament and to give such directions as may be necessary from time to time, in order to secure smooth and efficient conduct of such business; Hence, statement 3 is correct. (ii) to scrutinise, and to consider the attitude of the Government on non-official bills and resolutions to be presented to Parliament; (iii) to maintain a review from an all-India point of view of legislations undertaken by State legislatures; and (iv) to consider proposals to summon or prorogue the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. (Source: The Ashok Pahwa Committee (1996) was associated with: (a) Reforms in the Lok Sabha (b) Caste Census (c) Eighth Schedule (d) Delimitation Explanation — The Ashok Pahwa Committee (1996) proposed that a language be added to the Eighth Schedule if it was an official language in at least one state, a significant portion of a state's population spoke it, it was an independent language rather than a dialect or derivative of one already listed, it was recognised by the Sahitya Akademi, and it had a well-defined and developed literary tradition. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Consider the following statements: 1. A Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. 2. Members of Parliament shall be liable to proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by them in Parliament or any committee. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — Article 105 of the Constitution of India provides for the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees. — There shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. — No member of Parliament shall be liable in any court for anything said or voted on in Parliament or any committee thereof, nor shall any person be liable in respect of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings published by or under the authority of either House of Parliament. Hence, statements 1 and 2 are not correct. — Each House of Parliament, as well as its members and committees, must have the rights, privileges, and immunities prescribed by Parliament by legislation from time to time. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. (Other Source: Constitution of India) Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 109 and 110) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 109) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 109) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 109) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 109) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 109) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
