How Women Migrant Electors Are Disenfranchised in the Bihar SIR Process

How Women Migrant Electors Are Disenfranchised in the Bihar SIR Process

Why in News?

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has sparked significant controversy due to the exclusion of approximately 65 lakh electors from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, 2025. A granular analysis of the data reveals a disproportionate impact on women, particularly those in the 18–39 age group, who have been classified as “permanently shifted” or “untraceable.” This has raised serious concerns about the disenfranchisement of female migrant voters, especially married women, and highlights systemic biases in the electoral revision process.

Introduction

Electoral rolls are the bedrock of democratic participation, ensuring that every eligible citizen can exercise their right to vote. However, the recent SIR process in Bihar has exposed critical flaws in how migrant populations, particularly women, are treated by the Election Commission (EC). The SIR, intended to verify and clean up electoral rolls, has instead led to the mass exclusion of voters, underscoring the need for a more nuanced approach to migration and residency in electoral laws. This article delves into the specifics of the Bihar SIR, its gendered impact, the legal ambiguities surrounding “ordinary residence,” and the broader implications for democratic inclusivity in India.

The Bihar SIR Process: An Overview

The SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar was initiated by the EC on June 24, 2025, with the stated goal of conducting an “intensive verification drive to verify each person before enrolment as an elector.” The process involved a 30-day window for existing electors to submit filled enumeration forms to confirm their residency details. Those who failed to respond or were deemed “permanently shifted,” “untraceable,” or “deceased” were excluded from the draft electoral roll published on August 1, 2025.

Key Statistics from the SIR

• Total Deletions: 65 lakh electors.

• Reasons for Deletion:

  • Permanently shifted or untraceable: 55% (over 35 lakh electors).

  • Deceased: 34% (approximately 22 lakh electors).

  • Multiple enrolments: 10.8% (about 7 lakh electors).

The publication of Assembly Constituency (AC)-wise lists, as directed by the Supreme Court, enabled detailed analysis. The Hindu‘s Data Point team focused on the nine ACs with the highest deletions, revealing a gendered pattern:

• Total Deletions in Top 9 ACs: 4.73 lakh electors.

• Female Electors Deleted: 2.68 lakh (56.1% of total deletions).

• Reasons for Female Deletions:

  • Permanently shifted: 1.23 lakh (46%).

  • Untraceable: 73,615 (27%).

  • Deceased: 54,780 (20%).

  • Multiple enrolments: 16,609 (6%).

• Age Profile of “Permanently Shifted” Women:

  • 18–39 years: 81,679 (66%).

  • 40 years and above: 42,146 (34%).

The Gendered Impact: Marriage as a Driver of Disenfranchisement

The disproportionate deletion of young women classified as “permanently shifted” points to a systemic bias against married women. Census data indicates that marriage is the primary reason for female migration in India, accounting for 85.7% of female migrants in Bihar (2010 Census). Despite this, the EC’s SIR order dated June 24, 2025, cited “frequent migration of population from one place to another on account of education, livelihood and other reasons” as justification for the intensive verification drive but notably omitted marriage as a cause.

Why This Matters

• Legal Ambiguity: The concept of “ordinary residence,” as defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, remains vague. This lack of clarity allows for arbitrary interpretations that disproportionately affect women who migrate after marriage.

• Extra-Legal Criteria: The SIR process introduced an extra-legal requirement for electors to submit enumeration forms within a 30-day window, which is particularly challenging for migrants who may not be aware of the revision or cannot easily access their previous constituency.

• Disenfranchisement: Deleting electors classified as “permanently shifted” without ensuring their enrolment in their new constituency effectively strips them of their voting rights. This violates the principle of universal adult suffrage.

Legal and Procedural Flaws in the SIR Process

The SIR process has exposed several legal and procedural weaknesses in India’s electoral governance:

1. Ambiguity in “Ordinary Residence”

• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, requires electors to be “ordinarily resident” in a constituency to be enrolled. However, the term is not clearly defined, leaving it open to interpretation by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

• The EC’s Manual on Electoral Rolls (2023) acknowledges this gap, noting that no rules have been made by the Central Government in consultation with the EC to determine “ordinary residence.”

2. Lack of Safeguards for Migrants

• The SIR process did not include mechanisms to ensure that deleted electors are re-enrolled in their new constituencies. This is especially critical for internal migrants, who constitute a significant portion of Bihar’s population.

• The EC’s focus on “foreign illegal migrants” and citizenship determination has diverted attention from the need to address the enrolment challenges faced by internal migrants.

3. Inadequate Public Awareness and Participation

• The 30-day window for submitting enumeration forms was insufficient, particularly for marginalized communities with limited access to information.

• Low rates of claims and objections filed (only 70,895 claims and 2.28 lakh Form 6 applications as of August 21) indicate that many deleted electors may not be reinstated.

Broader Implications for Democratic Inclusivity

The mass exclusion of women migrant electors in Bihar has far-reaching implications for democracy in India:

1. Undermining Gender Equality

• The SIR process reinforces patriarchal norms by effectively erasing married women from electoral rolls unless they proactively re-enroll. This contradicts constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

• Women’s political agency is diminished when their voting rights are contingent on marital status.

2. Weakening Federalism

• Internal migration is a common phenomenon in India, with states like Bihar having high out-migration rates. Electoral laws must adapt to this mobility rather than penalizing migrants.

• The current system creates a bureaucratic hurdle for migrants, discouraging political participation.

3. Eroding Trust in Electoral Institutions

• The EC’s credibility is at stake when its processes lead to large-scale disenfranchisement. Trust in electoral outcomes depends on inclusive and transparent roll revision.

Comparative Perspectives: How Other Countries Handle Migrant Voters

Several countries have developed robust systems to ensure migrant voters are not disenfranchised:

1. United States

• The National Voter Registration Act (1993) requires states to offer voter registration opportunities at driver’s license centers, public assistance offices, and other agencies.

• Many states allow online registration and address updates, reducing barriers for migrants.

2. United Kingdom

• British citizens living abroad can register as overseas voters and vote in UK elections for up to 15 years after leaving the country.

• Electoral registration forms are available online, and reminders are sent to eligible voters.

3. Australia

• The Australian Electoral Commission conducts direct outreach to communities, including migrants, to ensure enrolment.

• Enrolment is compulsory, and failure to update details can result in fines, incentivizing compliance.

These examples highlight the importance of proactive measures to include migrant voters.

The Way Forward: Recommendations for Reform

To address the disenfranchisement of migrant electors, especially women, the following steps are urgently needed:

1. Legal Clarity on “Ordinary Residence”

• The Central Government, in consultation with the EC, should define “ordinary residence” clearly, considering the realities of internal migration.

• Marriage-induced migration should be explicitly recognized, and women should have the right to choose their constituency of enrolment.

2. Procedural Reforms in Electoral Roll Revision

• Extend the deadlines for claims and objections to ensure adequate participation.

• Implement a system of automatic transfer of enrolment for migrants, linked to Aadhaar or other databases.

• Conduct targeted outreach to marginalized communities, including women, to raise awareness about enrolment processes.

3. Gender-Sensitive Policies

• The EC should issue guidelines to prevent the arbitrary deletion of women electors due to marriage-related migration.

• Local authorities should be trained to handle enrolment applications from women migrants sensitively.

4. Technology-Driven Solutions

• Develop a portable voter registration system that allows electors to update their addresses seamlessly across constituencies.

• Use SMS and mobile apps to notify electors about roll revision and facilitate online submissions.

5. Independent Oversight

• Establish an independent body to monitor electoral roll revisions and address grievances related to disenfranchisement.

• Conduct regular audits of electoral rolls to ensure accuracy and inclusivity.

Conclusion

The Bihar SIR process has revealed a systemic failure to protect the voting rights of migrant electors, particularly women. By ignoring the primary reason for female migration—marriage—the EC has inadvertently disenfranchised lakhs of young women, undermining the very democracy it is meant to serve. Immediate corrective measures are needed to restore these voters to the rolls and prevent such exclusions in the future. Beyond Bihar, this episode underscores the urgent need for comprehensive electoral reforms that accommodate India’s mobile population, ensuring that no citizen is left behind in the democratic process.

5 Questions and Answers

Q1: What is the Bihar SIR process, and why is it controversial?
A: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an electoral roll verification drive in Bihar that led to the deletion of 65 lakh electors. It is controversial due to its disproportionate impact on women migrants, particularly married women, who were classified as “permanently shifted” and excluded from the rolls.

Q2: How does marriage contribute to the disenfranchisement of women in Bihar?
A: Marriage is the primary reason for female migration in Bihar. The SIR process failed to account for this, deleting women who moved post-marriage without ensuring their re-enrolment in new constituencies, effectively stripping them of voting rights.

Q3: What legal ambiguities contribute to this issue?
A: The term “ordinary residence” in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, is not clearly defined, allowing arbitrary interpretations that disadvantage migrants. The EC has not established rules to determine residency for migrant electors.

Q4: What are the broader implications of this disenfranchisement?
A: It undermines gender equality, weakens federalism by penalizing mobility, and erodes trust in electoral institutions. Large-scale exclusions threaten the integrity of democratic processes.

Q5: What steps can be taken to address this problem?
A: Key measures include defining “ordinary residence” clearly, extending deadlines for claims, implementing automatic enrolment transfers, conducting targeted outreach, and using technology to facilitate seamless registration.