Context: The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s methodology for revising electoral rolls, particularly the deletion of existing voters who failed to return enumeration forms or were marked as shifted or absent.
- Core concern: The SIR transfers the burden of enrolment from the State to individual electors and risks wrongful disenfranchisement, including of people who have voted previously.
Supreme Court's Observations
- Deletion of existing voters: Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether failure to respond to enumeration forms due to laxity or non-response could justify permanently depriving an existing voter of voting rights.
- Re-registration requirement: The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that requiring deleted voters to apply afresh through Form 6, meant for new voter registration, was erroneous.
- Shifted voters: The Court questioned why voters who had changed residences could not simply provide their updated details or submit enumeration forms belatedly instead of being treated as new applicants.
- Burden of enrolment: The existing SIR process places the responsibility of establishing eligibility on electors, even those already registered, rather than facilitating their continued inclusion through the electoral machinery.
Large-scale Deletions and Their Implications
- Draft roll deletions: The proportion of deletions classified as 'shifted' or 'absent' increased from 55% in Bihar to 72% in States/UTs covered under Phase III.
- Karnataka example: Approximately 84 lakh electors were deleted and classified as shifted or absent during enumeration. However, only a net 8.2 lakh electors, including newly registered voters, were added during the claims phase.
- Electoral deficit: Karnataka's final electoral roll remained 64.5 lakh below the projected adult population.
- Historical contrast: During the 2002–03 intensive revision, enumerators enrolled shifted voters at their new residences, while the Chief Electoral Officer reconciled their previous electoral entries. The present re-registration requirement departs from this approach and may restrict the expansion of electoral participation.
Concerns Regarding Logical Discrepancy Checks
- Legal validity: Justice Bagchi observed that the Bihar judgment was not a binding precedent and that the legality of logical discrepancy checks, permitted as an interim arrangement in West Bengal, had not been finally adjudicated.
- Questionable criteria: The ECI employed algorithm-driven checks based on factors such as family size and age gaps between voters and their parents to identify discrepancies.
- Absence of statutory backing: No specific statute or rule prescribes these criteria as grounds for determining voter eligibility.
- Disproportionate impact: In West Bengal, these checks reportedly resulted in large-scale disenfranchisement. An analysis by The Hindu also found that Muslims were disproportionately flagged in Delhi.
Concerns Regarding the ECI's Approach
- Procedural versus structural reform: The editorial argues that extending deadlines or displaying printed electoral lists at the block level cannot adequately address the problem.
- Flawed design: Errors in the final SIR rolls are attributed not merely to administrative lapses but also to the underlying methodology governing voter identification and deletion.
- Constitutional concern: Wrongful deletion of eligible voters undermines the principle of universal adult suffrage and the objective of widening electoral participation.
Way Forward
- Correct electoral rolls: Remove genuinely dead and duplicate entries while ensuring that newly eligible voters are added.
- Restore eligible voters: Individuals wrongly deleted from draft electoral rolls must be reinstated through an accessible process.
- Simplify correction procedures: Voters changing residences should be able to update their details without undergoing fresh registration as first-time applicants.
- Legal clarity: The legality and permissible scope of algorithm-based logical discrepancy checks must be clearly determined.
- Institutional accountability: The ECI's conduct during SIR and the process of appointment of its members require wider examination and resolution.
Important Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections and preparation of electoral rolls in the ECI.
- Article 325: Provides for one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency and prohibits exclusion from electoral rolls on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex.
- Article 326: Provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of universal adult suffrage, subject to constitutional and statutory qualifications.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides the statutory framework for electoral rolls, including preparation, revision, registration and correction of entries.
- Form 6: Used for applying for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, particularly for new electors.
- Form 8: Used for shifting of residence, correction of entries and replacement of EPIC, among other purposes.
