SIR - Protests and the Question We Should Really Be Asking
Once again ,India is witnessing political protests, this time, over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. This is not a new activity but keeps happening at a regular cadence. The political temperature is rising, allegations are flying, and the Election Commission of India is being accused of attempting to manipulate the electoral process.
Revision of electoral rolls is a routine process and has happened many times in the past too. When electoral rolls are revised, the real issue should not be who vociferous (shouts the loudest) is, but whether every genuine voter gets a fair opportunity to vote. At the centre of the controversy is a dramatic number: around 13 crore names allegedly being deleted from electoral rolls. However, before we accept such a statement, perhaps we should pause and ask a simple question: Are 13 crore genuine, eligible and living voters actually being denied their right to vote?
Numbers can create headlines. Evidence should create conclusions.
People should understand/ realise that a large number appearing in a voter-roll revision does not automatically mean that an equal number of legitimate voters have been disenfranchised. Political parties, too should behave responsibly. Anarchy might get attention but will not help them go far. Indeed, during the Bihar SIR exercise, the Election Commission reported categories including deceased electors, duplicate registrations, permanently migrated or untraceable electors, and electors whose enumeration forms had not been returned. The Commission also provided mechanisms for claims and objections. It also involved almost all the political parties through their Booth Level Agents. When all the parties were involved, why they are protesting now and have not acted earlier?
Electoral rolls inevitably accumulate errors over a period of time. People die, families migrate, People get registered in more than one constituency, addresses change, names and other details may be entered differently, some people move permanently without updating their electoral registration, some people simply may not respond to a verification exercise. The list can go long. Hence, the headline number of names not appearing in a draft roll should not by itself be presented as the number of genuine voters who have been deliberately removed.
There is an important distinction between “13 crore names are not presently on the revised roll” and “13 crore genuine voters have been illegally disenfranchised.” The first is a question of electoral-roll data. The second is a very serious allegation. The second requires evidence. This does not mean that every concern about SIR should be dismissed. Leaving out a genuine voter, even it is in small number, is a concern. The right to vote is not just another administrative entitlement, It is one of the most fundamental mechanisms through which a citizen participates in a democracy.
Hence, the Election Commission must hold a high standard. The process should be:
• Transparent
• Verifiable
• Accessible
• Time-bound
• Capable of correcting mistakes
The Supreme Court's scrutiny of the process is, therefore, not something that should be viewed as an attack on the Election Commission. Although few of its observations are unwarranted and quite sensational. It is precisely how democratic institutions are expected to work - allegations are examined, procedures are tested and mistakes—if established—are corrected.
The Court has already examined the legal basis and proportionality of SIR in the context of Bihar, while the wider controversy continues to generate judicial scrutiny. That is a healthy institutional process. There is, however, an interesting question that deserves much greater public attention. If the political claim is that millions of genuine voters have been removed, where is the corresponding evidence from those voters themselves?
Where are the constituency-wise lists of genuine electors who claim that their names are deleted but say:
• I am alive
• I am eligible to vote
• I have lived at this address
• I have voted in this election from this booth at this constituency
• My name was on the electoral roll
• My name has now disappeared
• Here is my proof
Such cases should not merely be discussed at political rallies. They should be documented. They should be independently verified. They should be presented constituency by constituency. If lakhs or crores of such genuine cases exist, the Election Commission should have to address them. That would be a far more powerful democratic argument than a political slogan.
While this is said there is another aspect that deserves attention. All of us should realise that the responsibility does not lie only with the Election Commission. Electoral democracy is a shared responsibility. The Election Commission has the responsibility to prepare an accurate electoral roll. However, the citizens too, have a responsibility to ensure that their electoral details are correct.
Political parties have an even greater responsibility. Every major political party has workers, booth-level organisations and representatives on the ground. If a genuine voter is missing from the electoral roll, political parties have the organisational capability to identify such cases, help the voter submit the appropriate claim and follow it through.
The ECI's own process provides mechanisms for eligible electors who have been left out to submit claims and for objections to be raised against ineligible entries. Its current voter portal and their user-friendly app also provides facilities to search electoral rolls and submit relevant forms. Thus, perhaps the most constructive political response is to audit the process rather than politicise every number.
Imagine if every political party were to jointly undertake a simple exercise. Take every constituency where substantial numbers of names have disappeared. Divide the cases into categories:
• Deceased voters
• Duplicate registrations
• Permanently migrated voters
• Untraceable voters
• Voters who did not submit the required form
• Genuine voters who were wrongly excluded
Then independently verify the last category. If the numbers are insignificant, the political allegations lose credibility. If the numbers are substantial, the Election Commission has a serious problem to correct. Either way, India wins. That is what a mature democracy should be doing.
The reported differences of opinion among Election Commissioners have also become part of the political controversy. However, disagreement within a constitutional body is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing. In fact, differences of opinion can be perfectly normal in any serious institution. The Election Commission itself has stated that operational queries and differing views are part of the deliberative process and that final decisions were taken unanimously. The correct response, therefore, is neither to dismiss the differences as meaningless nor to automatically interpret them as evidence of electoral fraud. The sensible response is: Make the decision-making process transparent. Transparency removes suspicion far more effectively than political arguments do.
Protest is a democratic right. But protest should produce evidence and should not be throwing spokes on the wheels of rest of the affairs. There is nothing inherently wrong with political protests. Indeed, the right to protest is an essential feature of democracy. Opposition parties have every right to question the government and the Election Commission but there is a difference between raising a question and declaring the answer. The burden should be on anyone making such a serious allegation to substantiate it. If evidence emerges, it must be taken seriously—irrespective of which political party benefits or loses.
One worrying trend in Indian politics is the increasing tendency to treat every institutional disagreement as an existential battle. Election results are questioned, Electronic Voting machines are questioned, Electoral rolls are questioned, Election Commissioners are questioned, Courts are questioned, Governments are questioned and this list goes on. We should be careful about turning issues into permanent warfare.
Questioning is healthy, but when every disagreement becomes an accusation of conspiracy, public trust itself becomes the casualty. A democracy cannot function if citizens are persuaded that every institution is corrupt whenever the political outcome is unfavourable to them. Nor can democracy function if citizens are expected to accept every decision of an institution without questioning it. The answer lies somewhere in between: Trust—but verify, Question—but substantiate, Protest—but provide evidence, Correct—but do not politicise correction.
Instead of competing to organise bigger protests, political parties should compete to identify genuine voters who have been wrongly excluded. Provide evidence, build trust. Instead of treating the Election Commission as either completely infallible or completely compromised, we could demand that it operate with maximum transparency.
Let us emphasise on “My vote counts – before counting of votes”
The objective would be simple that none should disagree with:
1. No dead or duplicate voter should remain on the roll
2. No genuine voter should be left out
The SIR controversy should therefore not become another chapter in India's endless political confrontation. It should become an opportunity to strengthen our electoral system. If there are mistakes, correct them. If procedures are unnecessarily complicated, simplify them.
If the political parties have evidence of deliberate manipulation, they should present it before the appropriate constitutional and judicial forums. But until allegations are supported by evidence, allegations should remain allegations—not become accepted facts through repetition. India's democracy is too important to be reduced to a contest over who can organise the largest protest or make the loudest accusation.
Can every eligible Indian citizen vote—and can every vote be trusted? – This is the question worth protesting for. That is the question not only worth investigating but worth answering.
