The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar that comes up in the Supreme Court Thursday amid widespread apprehension across the state marks a sharp departure from previous such drives in two key aspects.
One, for the first time, the SIR, essentially a fresh preparation through door-to-door enumeration, places the burden of proof on already-enrolled voters (on the question of citizenship) at the draft roll stage.
And, two, it disregards the “sanctity” of the existing electoral roll – something the Election Commission (EC) had consistently instructed its officers to uphold in all earlier revisions, an analysis of past EC records by The Indian Express reveals.
This despite a High Court order – it was upheld by the Supreme Court – that underlined the importance of self-declaration and made it clear that the “question of citizenship” didn’t arise during the preparation of the draft roll.
The poll watchdog has undertaken “intensive revision” of the electoral roll for all or some parts of the country on several occasions, especially in the years 1952-56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Intensive revision refers to the de novo preparation of the electoral roll from scratch through personal, house-to-house field verification by electoral registration officers (or EROs).
A scrutiny of the methodology adopted in past such exercises shows that never before has the Commission required existing electors to furnish documentary proof to remain on the electoral roll.
Currently, under the Bihar SIR, those who were on the 2003 electoral rolls need only submit an extract from it as proof, while others (enrolled after 2003) must provide one or more documents from a list of 11 (along with a pre-filled enumeration form for existing electors) to establish their date and/or place of birth – which, in turn, is used to determine citizenship.
In sharp contrast, in earlier intensive revisions, enumerators – now EROs for each polling station area – visited households to record details of all residents aged 18 or above as of the qualifying date.
They were neither required nor authorised to verify citizenship or age and entries in the enumeration pad were made based solely on information provided by the head or a senior member of the household, who then signed or gave a thumb impression in the book, with an undertaking that the information was true to the best of their knowledge.
The enumerator would countersign the entries, completing the enumeration process without demanding documentary proof. The draft electoral roll was then prepared based on the information recorded in the enumeration books.
In fact, in 1993, when the poll watchdog tried venturing into the question of citizenship at the stage of preparation of the draft roll, the Gauhati High Court held in the case of H.R.A. Chaudhury vs. Election Commission and Others (supra) (upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) that “the draft rolls are to be prepared on the basis of the statements submitted by the heads of the households in a constituency in Form 4 under Rule 8 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”
The court underlined that the “statement made by a Head of the Household has its own value and cannot be lightly brushed aside. Rules do not contemplate any inquiry into the question of citizenship at the stage of preparation of draft roll, although there is provision for objection after the draft roll is published on the ground that a person who is not a citizen of India has been erroneously included.”
This order followed the Commission’s directive at the time asking every ERO in Assam to prepare two lists during enumeration – one listing persons clearly identified as citizens of India under the Constitution or the Citizenship Act, 1955, and another listing those whose citizenship was in doubt.
Another significant departure from past intensive revision exercises is that – unlike what is happening in Bihar now – the Commission had consistently advised its officers to uphold the sanctity of the existing electoral rolls and, consequently, the names of those already included in successive rolls.
This principle is now under question, with the EC requiring those enrolled after 2003 to prove their eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll once again.
This principle was evident in earlier exercises when the question of verifying the citizenship of individuals included in the draft roll arose. The EC had instructed its officers that such names should not be deleted merely on the allegation that the individuals were non-citizens.
Even during the claims and objections stage – when any person could file a formal objection to the inclusion of an alleged illegal immigrant – the Commission maintained that “deletion of names of such electors should only be on the basis of the production of positive documentary proof obtained by the objector from the proper authority dealing with the question under law, and even then in such individual cases reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the elector affected. The onus was clearly on the objector and not on the elector whose continuance in the roll was objected to.” This was stated in the EC’s annual report of 1983.
The Commission had undertaken a staggered intensive revision of the electoral rolls across the country in 1983 and 1984. In fact, when in 1983, then Chief Minister of Mizoram Brig. T. Sailo wrote to the poll watchdog suggesting that all illegal entrants/immigrants after 25.3.1971 should be disenfranchised, the EC reiterated that its stand on the sanctity of the existing electoral roll could not be ignored.
“While intimating the action being taken on the issue, the Commission clarified to him that the question of illegal migrants was not the concern of the Commission or any authorities working under its superintendence, control and direction. It would be inappropriate and without jurisdiction to issue any instructions to local election officers to delete the names of illegal immigrants whose names had been included earlier in the successive electoral rolls. The Commission requested him to take up this particular issue with the Ministry of Home Affairs for effectively dealing with this aspect of the problem,” the EC’s annual report of 1983 stated.
In its instructions to EROs on the intensive revision of J&K electoral rolls in 2004, the EC advised its officers that when an existing elector’s citizenship is suspected or objected to, the ERO “or any other officer inquiring into the matter shall bear in mind that the entire gamut for inclusion of the name in the electoral roll must have been undertaken (in the past) and hence adequate probative value be attached to that factum before issuance of notice and in subsequent proceedings”.
Asked about the departure from past practice, an EC official said, “The last intensive revision in Bihar took place in 2003. During an intensive revision, the names of shifted and dead voters get deleted easily – something that’s difficult to do in a summary revision. Hence, the instruction to seek documentary proof of electors enrolled after 2003.”
Defending the requirement of documentary proof from existing electors, the official said, “We want to build a robust database of documentary proof so that any future queries on eligibility of voters can be addressed by just referring to this database.”