DC Edit | Inclusive SIR Can Help Clean Up Electoral Rolls
The exercise is based on the voters’ list published after the last SIR, which was held in 2002-2004
One of the constitutional mandates of the Election Commission of India is to ensure the sanctity of the electoral roll and hence the nationwide special intensive revision (SIR) in nine states and three Union Territories starting on November 4 must be seen as part of an exercise to fulfil its responsibility. The poll-bound states of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and the Union territory of Puducherry are part of the exercise, while Assam, which elects a new Assembly later next year, is a noted omission. The other states and UTs on the list are Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
The exercise is based on the voters’ list published after the last SIR, which was held in 2002-2004. The representative of the EC will visit each and every house in these states and Union territories and ensure that all voters whose names were on the previous list will remain in the new list, too, while those whose names were absent can enter it by producing one of the 12 documents, including Aadhaar, listed by the ECI. The EC will publish the first draft on December 9 and the final electoral rolls on February 7. Aggrieved voters can appeal to the district magistrates and then the chief electoral officers of the states and the UTs.
As per the ECI, the SIR beginning next month is the second phase of the exercise, the first being the recent one in Bihar. It has also stated that it will take the lessons it has learnt from Bihar while rolling it out in the next phases. It may be remembered the first phase had faced several legal hurdles before it was wound up, with the Supreme Court making forcible interventions at regular intervals. While upholding the right of the poll panel to go ahead with the SIR, the apex court’s directive to the poll panel was simple: Make it an inclusive exercise, and not an exclusive one. The court also ensured that the EC expanded the list of documents that a voter can present to remain on the voters’ list. The court refused to accept the ECI’s position that it was not mandatory for it to publish the list of deleted names, and ordered it to be transparent in its actions. It will be in the best interest of the election process and the cause of democracy if the ECI designed the second phase factoring the inputs given by the apex court.
The SIR was necessitated by several factors, including frequent migration resulting in voters getting registered in multiple locations, non-removal of dead voters and “wrongful inclusion of any foreigner”, according to the chief election commissioner (CEC). No one should quarrel with the CEC on that count; it is incumbent on all citizens and political parties to extend their fullest cooperation with the poll panel to make it a success. However, it must be the endeavour of the commission to ensure that a name deleted from the list deserved to be so removed, and all names eligible to be on it are there, whatever it takes. It should not try to take refuge in the constitutional protection it enjoys to be opaque in its decisions and operations but be as transparent as possible while undertaking this exercise so critical to the survival and success of democracy in this country.
