The Constitutional Crisis of Electoral Roll Purges, When the Election Commission Oversteps

The Constitutional Crisis of Electoral Roll Purges, When the Election Commission Oversteps

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has invented the term “logical discrepancy” to delete voters from the voters’ list in recent elections (the States of Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, and the Union Territory of Puducherry). It is alleged that lakhs of voters have been removed from the voter list in States where elections have been held recently. Even the Supreme Court of India’s innovative idea of tribunals could not get these voters back onto the list, mainly because of the near-total mess created by the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls exercise. It has been pointed out by many commentators that the SIR, as designed by the ECI, is deeply flawed and, if continued, will result in the elimination of a very large number of Indian citizens from the electoral roll. Media reports indicate an alarming situation, particularly in West Bengal, where lakhs of genuine citizens have had their names removed from the electoral roll and placed under the category of “logical discrepancies”. The fact is that many of them were unable to vote in the election or the first phase of the election. This is not a minor administrative glitch; it is a constitutional crisis.

Citizenship as the Basic Requirement: Who Decides What Documents Prove It?

The issue of the elimination of people from the voter list revolves around the question of citizenship. Article 326 of the Constitution enjoins that every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age and who is not disqualified under the Constitution or law shall be entitled to be registered “as a voter at any election”. Thus, citizenship is the basic requirement for anyone to be registered as a voter.

The citizenship law is administered by the Union Home Ministry. Therefore, it is the duty of the Ministry to announce the list of documents required to prove the citizenship of Indians. However, as far as is known, the Ministry has not issued any such list.

Instead, the ECI announced a list of documents at the time of initiating the SIR in Bihar. Since many documents that citizens normally use for various purposes, such as Aadhaar card, ration card, and even the photo voter identity card issued by the ECI itself, were not accepted by the ECI as proof of citizenship, people began running helter-skelter in search of the documents listed by the ECI. Many of such documents were hard to find, especially for rural people who are not in the habit of preserving such documents. Thus, as many as 91 lakh voters were removed from the voter list in West Bengal because they could not produce the documents that the ECI required to prove their citizenship.

A question of great constitutional significance arises here. Does the ECI have the power under Article 324 to determine what documents the citizens should produce to prove their citizenship? The simple answer is that such power is vested in the Union Home Ministry, and it is the constitutional duty of the Home Ministry to announce publicly the documents required for this purpose. The ECI can only verify those documents while enrolling citizens in the voters’ list. Here, the ECI is acting beyond its jurisdiction. Article 324 does not empower the ECI to usurp the power of the Home Ministry. But it is surprising that the Supreme Court did not address this question when the issue of documents came before it. It was expected that the Court would direct the Union government to announce the list of documents and submit an affidavit in this regard. Instead, the Court merely requested the ECI to consider whether the Aadhaar card could also be counted as a relevant document.

The Legal Framework: Summary Revision vs. Intensive Revision

The SIR has been conducted in the election-bound States, deviating from the law. Section 21 in The Representation of the People Act, 1950 says that the electoral roll shall be revised before each general election and before a bye-election and also in any year as directed by the ECI. Apart from these, the ECI can also undertake a special revision of the roll of a constituency or part of it for reasons to be recorded. Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 explains that the revision can be done summarily or intensively, which makes it clear that pre-election revision is summary in nature and the revision done in any year (when there is no election coming up) is intensive.

A combined reading of Section 21(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules makes it clear that only a summary revision of the rolls can be done before the general election or any bye-election. The intensive revision can be done at any other time when elections are not due, the reason being that such a revision is very comprehensive and the voters’ list needs to be prepared afresh. It is a very time-consuming exercise and cannot be done in such a hasty manner. The SIR conducted by the ECI a couple of months before the Bihar election, and, thereafter, in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal is thus a clear deviation from the law and past practice.

In West Bengal, where the SIR exercise was absolutely chaotic, over 91 lakh voters have been removed from the voter list, many of whom have been placed in the category of “logical discrepancy”. This categorization of citizens is unknown to the election law. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 lays out a detailed scheme for the preparation of the electoral roll. There is no provision for a “logical discrepancy” category. The ECI has invented this term to justify deletions that have no basis in law.

The Rule of Natural Justice: No Hearing, No Fairness

Besides the legal violations, the SIR process has also violated the principles of natural justice. Rule 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules clearly states that the occupants of the dwelling houses shall furnish the information called for to the best of their ability. This should mean that the ECI will have to accept the information that the occupants of the house have provided to the best of their ability. It makes no sense for the ECI to insist on obtaining information that, in the normal course, is not possible to procure, particularly for unlettered rural people in remote parts of the country.

The fact that 64 lakh voters in Bihar and 91 lakh in West Bengal were removed from the voters’ list simply demonstrates the deliberate non-adherence to this and other rules by the ECI. These deletions were done without giving those affected a hearing. There was no notice, no opportunity to be heard, no appeal that could be processed before the election. This is a blatant denial of natural justice as well as a violation of statutory provisions.

The object of this hastily conducted SIR seems to be to remove millions of voters from the voters’ list. Media reports suggest that much of these deletions have been done without giving those affected a hearing. Free and fair elections cannot be ensured by deviating from or violating the statute. The justice system in the country cannot permanently turn a blind eye to it.

The Supreme Court’s Role: A Missed Opportunity

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to address these constitutional and legal violations. It could have directed the Union Home Ministry to issue a clear list of documents acceptable as proof of citizenship. It could have declared the SIR process illegal. It could have ordered the restoration of all deleted names. It could have held the ECI accountable for its overreach.

Instead, the Court merely requested the ECI to consider whether the Aadhaar card could also be counted as a relevant document. This is a timid response to a massive violation of the franchise. The Court’s innovative idea of tribunals to hear appeals could not get voters back on the list because the process was too slow, too cumbersome, and too late. By the time a voter’s appeal was heard, the election was over. The remedy was meaningless.

The Court’s deference to the ECI is understandable—the Commission has a constitutional mandate and a reputation for professionalism. But deference is not abdication. When the ECI acts beyond its jurisdiction, violates statutory provisions, and disenfranchises millions of citizens, the Court must intervene. It failed to do so.

The Political Implications: Who Benefits from the Purge?

The SIR has been conducted in states where the ruling party at the Centre (the BJP) is in electoral competition with regional parties. The deletions have disproportionately affected voters from minority communities, the poor, the illiterate, and the rural population. These are demographics that tend to vote against the BJP. Whether by design or by effect, the SIR has benefited the BJP.

Chief Minister Pramod Sawant of Goa, where a similar revision was conducted, stated that the state’s “communal harmony cannot be disturbed by outsiders.” The same logic applies to the SIR: the electoral process cannot be disturbed by administrative overreach. The ECI is not an “outsider” to the states, but it is acting as if it were—imposing a centralised, rigid, document-heavy process that is alien to the realities of rural India.

The fact that 91 lakh voters were deleted in West Bengal, a state where the BJP is trying to expand its footprint, cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. The scale of the deletions, the timing of the revision, and the demographic patterns of those removed all point to a deliberate strategy of electoral engineering.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming the Franchise

The SIR must be abandoned. The ECI must revert to the summary revision process prescribed by law for pre-election periods. The “logical discrepancy” category must be abolished. All voters who were deleted must be restored to the rolls, with a simple verification process that does not require documents that are hard to obtain.

The Union Home Ministry must issue a clear list of documents acceptable as proof of citizenship. That list must include the Aadhaar card, the ration card, the voter ID card, and other documents that ordinary citizens possess. The ECI cannot be allowed to set its own standards.

The Supreme Court must intervene. It must declare the SIR illegal. It must order the restoration of deleted names. It must clarify the respective powers of the Home Ministry and the ECI over citizenship documentation. It must hold the ECI accountable for its violations.

The right to vote is the foundation of democracy. It cannot be taken away by administrative fiat. The citizens of India deserve better than a flawed revision process, a complicit judiciary, and a silent government. The franchise must be protected. The SIR must end.

Q&A: The SIR Controversy and Electoral Roll Purges

Q1: What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and why is it controversial?

A1: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a process of cleaning electoral rolls that the ECI conducted in election-bound states (Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Puducherry) just months before the elections. It is controversial because it deviates from the law: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules prescribe only a summary revision before elections (quick, simple). Intensive revision (comprehensive, time-consuming) is meant for non-election periods. The SIR conducted in West Bengal removed over 91 lakh voters (64 lakh in Bihar earlier), many placed under a new “logical discrepancy” category unknown to election law. The ECI invented this term to justify deletions without legal basis.

Q2: What is the constitutional question regarding who decides citizenship documents?

A2: Article 326 requires every citizen over 18 to be registered as a voter. Citizenship law is administered by the Union Home Ministry, which has the constitutional duty to announce the list of documents required to prove citizenship. The Home Ministry has not issued such a list. Instead, the ECI announced its own list of documents for the SIR. Many common documents (Aadhaar, ration card, even ECI’s own voter ID) were not accepted. The question is: Does the ECI have the power under Article 324 to determine citizenship documents? The article argues that power is vested in the Home Ministry, and the ECI is “acting beyond its jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court failed to address this question, merely requesting the ECI to consider whether Aadhaar could be counted.

Q3: How many voters were removed in West Bengal and Bihar, and what was the impact?

A3: In West Bengal, over 91 lakh voters were removed from the voter list. In Bihar earlier, 64 lakh voters were removed. Many were placed in a “logical discrepancy” category, a term “unknown to election law.” The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, has no such provision. The ECI invented it. The result was that “lakhs of genuine citizens” were unable to vote in the election or the first phase. The Supreme Court’s tribunals could not get these voters back on the list because the process was too slow—by the time an appeal was heard, the election was over.

Q4: Why is the SIR also a violation of natural justice?

A4: Rule 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules states that occupants of dwelling houses shall furnish information “to the best of their ability.” The ECI must accept that information. Instead, the ECI insisted on obtaining documents that are “impossible to procure, particularly for unlettered rural people.” The deletions were done “without giving those affected a hearing”—no notice, no opportunity to be heard, no appeal that could be processed before the election. This is a “blatant denial of natural justice.” The article concludes that the “object of this hastily conducted SIR seems to be to remove millions of voters from the voters’ list.”

Q5: What solutions does the article propose to address the SIR crisis?

A5: The article proposes several solutions:

• Abandon the SIR and revert to the summary revision process prescribed by law.

• Abolish the “logical discrepancy” category as unknown to election law.

• Restore all deleted voters with a simple verification process not requiring hard-to-obtain documents.

• Home Ministry must issue a clear list of acceptable citizenship documents, including Aadhaar, ration card, and voter ID.

• Supreme Court must intervene to declare the SIR illegal, order restoration, clarify the respective powers of Home Ministry and ECI, and hold the ECI accountable.
  The article concludes that the SIR is “a clear deviation from the law and past practice.” The right to vote “cannot be taken away by administrative fiat.” Free and fair elections cannot be ensured by “deviating from or violating the statute.” The justice system “cannot permanently turn a blind eye to it.” The franchise must be protected. The SIR must end.