SIR: Revision of electoral rolls a matter of concern

Large- scale deletions of voters from electoral rolls is a matter of great concern. The cumbersome procedure for submission of enumeration forms and non-acceptance by BLOs, if voters’ or their parents’ names do not appear in the electoral rolls of 2002 amounts to harassment. Either to go through it, or lose voting right is the succinct and clear-cut message. Subjecting existing voters to SIR rigmarole, is anachronistic to the laws on rolls revision. More so, in the light of Constitution Bench verdict in Anoop Bernwals case by the Apex Court which categorically held that all voters on the electoral roll have “right to vote” in the constituency where their names are entered u/s 62(1) 1951 Act.

They can be denied their rights only if anyone become disqualified, after registration u/s 16(2) 1950 Act, on incurring any disqualification. If the competent authority finds someone not a Citizen of India action can be initiated but not to indulge in this kind of indirect device. The Apex Court even want to observe that right to vote may not be statutory right but constitutional right. A perusal of ECI records would establish that the SIR proceeds on a misconceived presumption of similarity between, “Special Revision of an intensive nature” in 2002/2003 with present SIR. Both are diagonally opposite to each other in their methodology. Even in 2002/2003 “House to House “verification was conducted. Why now first mapping of 2002 rolls and then submission of enumeration form, with parental history. In 2001, the “Revision of Electoral Rolls of Intensive nature”, was with reference to 01.01. 2002, as qualifying date. In first phase, 20 States/UTs were to be covered, whereas remaining States/UTs were in 2nd phase, in 2003.

House to House verification was only to be undertaken. How can both be equated? The prime objective was “ intensive revision” of electoral rolls. Second objective, perhaps more important, to synchronise electoral rolls with “Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC)” Programme, started in 1994. In May 2001, the scheme was revised and detailed guidelines issued.The Electoral Cards was to be for multi-purpose and uniformity of identification. During “Special Revision of Intensive nature” all eligible persons, attaining the requisite age on the qualifying date, were to be included as per law.

They were to submit application in FORM- 6, a statutory performa in vogue. This has not been amended so far, but as reported by media:- “EC changes Form 6 has been voters without amendment to rules” . Commencing preparation of rolls at the behest of Constituent Assembly, after house-to-house enquiry, the Parliament enacted RPAct- 1950 and framed Rules. Latest amendment was in 2022, when “Registration of Electors Rules” (RER) were amended providing for “Forms for lodging claims and objections and for correction of electoral rolls”, effective from 1 August, 2022 but neither SIR nor enumeration forms were part of these Rules. SIR treats 01.01.2003, qualifying date, as probative evidence for eligibility, which can’t be sustain, in the teeth of Election Law (Amendment)Act-2021, when a person becomes eligible for registration as a voter on attaining 18 years of age, on any of four qualifying dates i.e 1st January, 1st April, 1st July & 1st October every year.

 An irrational and illogical move. The qualifying date in 1950 was 1st March, changed to 1st January in 1958 and later to 1st April only for 1989, latest amendment came in 2021 when four dates, were prescribed. The SIR is inherently erroneous. Clearly even ECI records are a testimony against SIR, as they reveal a duly verified voters list of 96.88 Crores, across the Country, after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs’). An exercise undertaken pursuant to ECI order dated 29.05.2023, ahead of General Election 2024, to conduct “Intensive Special Summary Revision-2024”, in exercise of powers under Article 324 read with Section 21 of RPAct 1950.

Simultaneously, names of 1,65,76,654 voters were deleted as part of comprehensive cleanup. The breakup of deleted voters included, 67,82,642 as dead; 75,11,128 having permanently shifted/ absentees, 22,05,68 found to be duplicates. This too was for Transparency, Purity, Health and Inclusivity of the electoral rolls, as the main objective of current SIR and was completed on 08.02.2024, in close proximity of Bihar SIR order dated 24.06.2024. Gujrat violence created an extraordinary situation to prepare electoral rolls, as people were shifted to relief camps. The villages were emptied and the assembly constituencies were partially/wholly abundant neither identifiable nor the voters were available.

The State Govt wanted elections to be held immediately, as Assembly was dissolved. The officials of ECI visited Gujrat and found situation not conducive to hold elections, and declined to hold elections before November/December, 2002, after a thorough verification and revision of electoral rolls. The ground realties incapacitated ECI to hold elections, despite under an obligation. Accurate and proper rolls were essentially required and without actual and updated rolls it was not possible. The Apex Court while answering the Presidential reference referred to situation that may be created by “act of God” like earthquakes, floods and such like other situations, the ECI has to act appropriately.

Gujrat violence was certainly not an act of God but man made. Nonetheless, the situation was beyond the control of ECI, since unless the rolls were prepared and revised based on the available data and door to door enquiries to establish accurate rolls, the elections were impossible. An extraordinary situation for ECI to meet. unlike Gujrat demographic change due to rapid urbanisation and migration of voters, shifting from place to place is a common phenomenon for decades.

It doesn’t create an extra ordinary situation but since a person can’t be Ordinary Residence at two places necessary deletions can be done during regular revision but it doesn’t warrant SIR. It is a duty assigned to BLOs and equally Party BLAs to update the rolls. if this is the criteria every year SIR would be required. Harassing millions of millions Indian citizens on rolls, according to ECI’s own figures of 2024 data 96.88 Crores is rather atrocious, more so when determination of citizenship is not within their domain.

The Apex Court has laid down that for existing voters on electoral rolls, there is a presumption of validity of citizenship. ECI can rebut it and the onus is on them but not by SIR methodology. The only way is disqualified u/s 16(1) of 1950 Act. It is expected that the Constitutional body will proceed as per law.

The author is a senior advocate and former president, Delhi High Court Bar Association and former chairman, Bar Council of Delhi; Views presented are personal.