20-07-2025
P Chidambaram writes: ‘Mischief thou art afoot'
If a popular vote had been taken between 1991and 1996, the Election Commission of India (ECI) would have been certainly voted as the best and most effective institution of India — even higher than the Constitutional Courts. Thanks to T N Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the ECI's independence, integrity and impartiality (the three 'I's) were universally acclaimed. After Seshan, the CECs who stoutly defended the three 'I's were M S Gill, Mr J M Lyngdoh, Mr T S Krishnamurthy, Navin Chawla and Mr S Y Quraishi. Other CECs drifted in and drifted out, sometimes bending and sometimes appearing to be unbending. CECs appointed in the last 12 years were, viewed through the prism of the Constitution, disasters.
ECI is an autonomous institution. In the early years, the conduct of elections was not considered a great challenge. People voted according to the wishes of local satraps, some sections were not allowed to vote but they were too poor and powerless to complain, and there was no political challenge to the Congress. Elections became challenging after 1967. The governments between 1965 and 2014 did not interfere with the functioning of the ECI, nor do I recall any accusation of interference. Some elections to the state assemblies were alleged to have been rigged but the allegation was not against the political party ruling at the Centre but against the incompetence of the ECI.
The Lok Sabha election of 2014 was a free and fair election. Since then, most of the elections to the Lok Sabha or the State Assemblies have been subject to widespread criticism of incompetence, rigging, fraud and worse. Since 2014, ECI has faced numerous challenges and it has emerged with its reputation severely scathed.
Apropos the election to the Maharashtra Assembly in November 2024, the electoral rolls became a subject of controversy. The allegations are that (i) an unusually large number of new —and perhaps ghost — names were added to the lists of voters and that (ii) an unusually large number of persons were allowed to vote long after polling hours had ended. ECI has attempted to defend itself against both charges but the jury is out.
Another bitterly contested state election is in the offing — in Bihar — and, next year, more are due. Bihar is a test case. Barely four months before the state will go to the polls, ECI has started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. This is unusual and unprecedented. An electoral roll is usually updated on January 1 of the year and a summary revision is done on the eve of the polls. The summary revision will include names of new and unenrolled voters and exclude dead or permanently migrated voters from the current electoral rolls. The bulk of the current electoral rolls will be intact and untouched. Besides, the inclusion and exclusion will be done with the full knowledge and participation of the political parties. Each case for inclusion will be carefully scrutinised and each case for exclusion will be decided after a full contest and hearing.
SIR is different. It effectively scraps the current electoral rolls. Despite the claim that SIR is based on the 2003 electoral rolls, it effectively starts from a zero base and constructs new electoral rolls for each constituency. Besides, the onus is shifted to the voter: despite his/her name being in the current electoral rolls and despite having had a right to vote (and in most cases having voted) in the Bihar Assembly elections of 2020 or the Lok Sabha elections of 2024, he/she must apply for inclusion with documents to prove his/her citizenship. And all this is expected to be done between June 25 and July 26.
The fine print of the exercise is not to enable enrollment but to place insurmountable hurdles in the path to enroll and vote. The ECI has prescribed 11 documents as 'proof' of citizenship: four of them do not contain information on place of birth and two of them have not been issued to any person in Bihar. So, effectively, there are only five documents (including caste certificate issued by revenue officers) to prove one's citizenship. Passport, birth certificate or government employee ID are available to only 2.4 to 5 per cent of the population of Bihar. Conspicuous by their absence are (1) Aadhaar, (2) EPIC or voter-identity card issued by the ECI and (3) ration card. When the Supreme Court asked ECI why the three missing documents cannot be included for the purpose of SIR, the ECI had no ready answer. The irony is residency and caste certificates are issued by revenue officers based on Aadhaar; while the residency or caste certificate is valid for SIR, the Aadhaar is invalid!
The only rational part of SIR is that dead persons and double-entry names must be removed. ECI has estimated that 17.5 lakh voters have migrated but that does not mean they are no longer domiciled in Bihar or will not return to vote. The CEO, Bihar uploaded a form for enrollment of out-of-state voters on July 15 and expects to complete the exercise by July 26!
The inevitable conclusion is that SIR is not an exercise to enable eligible citizens to enroll and vote. It is a dark, sinister plot to disenfranchise millions of poor, marginalized or migrant citizens. Over to the Supreme Court on July 28.
