Why the Supreme Court is right to question ECI's voter review in Bihar

The Supreme Court on Monday effectively reproved the Election Commission of India (ECI) for being excessively stringent in its operation of the “special intensive revision”, or SIR, in Bihar. This process, meant to recreate the electoral roll before the Assembly elections in that state, has become mired in controversy amid concerns about disenfranchisement. The court in July, however, chose not to act on those concerns and allowed the process to go ahead. But it did indicate that some documents — a ration card and the Aadhaar unique ID among them — should be considered as proof of residence by the poll panel. But the ECI, it appears, continued to avoid the use of Aadhaar. 

This was clearly seen to be inaccurate. The court has correctly stepped in to point out that, under the law as written, a unique ID must be accepted as proof of identity, more so as the ECI plans a countrywide SIR. There are no shortcuts available when it comes to the process of establishing citizenship. A special and intensive revision of the electoral roll, as the name implies, cannot just choose to avoid the use of certain documents because that might make the ECI’s job more difficult. Unless all possible methods of providing identity are included, accusations that such revisions are not inclusive will gain traction. 

It is important to note that the Aadhaar was never meant or designed to be proof of citizenship. Indeed, it was originally not even meant to prove residence. As conceived, it was a lightweight way to use digital technology to link a person’s biometrics to a specific number. Even during the previous government, however, it began to be weighed down by debates about what additional weight it could carry. The Union home ministry felt that it would compete with its National Population Register, which enumerated citizens, and fought against it; the eventual compromise was to turn it into address proof. However, the fact is that it is now widely accepted as proof of identity and residence, and thus must be scrutinised and not ignored by anyone trying to exclude a possible voter from the roll. 

The entire SIR project is problematic for the simple reason that establishing citizenship cannot be a special and intensive project prior to a pivotal election. The fact is that India has always had a problem identifying its citizens. This will probably decrease in future generations, given that more births are being officially registered now, and the ideal proof of citizenship is the birth certificate. But as it stands, a majority of Bihar’s voters asked to submit documentation were born in periods when the birth-registration rate was below 10 per cent. Thus, the process of validation becomes extremely difficult. Under such circumstances, as the court noted, it becomes a “trust issue”. In other words, the agency undertaking the effort of validating the right to vote must be operating with the highest standards, be seen to be impartial, and have adequate capacity dedicated to the task.