The recent article in The Tribune by Mr. Ashok Lavasa on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar makes for thoughtful reading. His experience as a former Election Commissioner lends weight to his concerns. Yet, with due respect, the analysis seems to conflate two distinct questions: who is a citizen and who is eligible to be registered as a voter. That conflation risks muddling an issue that requires the utmost clarity.
Citizenship is undoubtedly the foundation of the right to vote. No non-citizen can claim a place on the electoral rolls. But citizenship alone does not carry with it an unqualified entitlement to be registered. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes this abundantly clear: a person must inter alia also be at least 18 years of age and “ordinarily resident” in a constituency.
This is not a matter of bureaucratic technicality but of democratic principle. Elections are meant to reflect the will of those who actually live and participate in the civic life of a constituency. A person who has migrated from Bihar to Tamil Nadu cannot insist on remaining on the rolls of Bihar. At the same time, such a person is fully entitled to be registered as a voter in Tamil Nadu. Far from denying the franchise, this ensures that it is exercised meaningfully — in the place where the voter lives, works, and engages with local governance.
The Need for Periodic Revision
The process of cleansing and updating electoral rolls is not new. From the earliest years of the Republic, the Election Commission has recognised that without accurate rolls, the credibility of elections is undermined at the very root. Courts too have repeatedly emphasised that purity of the electoral rolls is integral to the conduct of free and fair elections.
Bloated rolls, containing names of the dead, duplicate entries, or those who have migrated, open the door to malpractice and dilute the principle of “one person, one vote.” What Bihar is attempting through the SIR is part of a long continuum of efforts to maintain integrity. If anything, the exercise comes after years of delay and hesitation, not as an abrupt innovation.
Karan Bir Singh Sidhu, IAS (Retd.), former Special Chief Secretary, Punjab, writes on the intersection of constitutional probity, due process, and democratic supremacy.
The Logic of the SIR
The Bihar SIR targets four categories: the dead, the duplicate, the ineligible, and the migrated. These are not controversial categories; no one can seriously argue that such names should remain. Yet, because inflated rolls suit certain political calculations, objections are raised in the abstract.
It is worth noting that other states too have periodically undertaken similar revisions, especially in urban centres where migration is high. Cities like Bengaluru, Delhi, and Mumbai have all grappled with the challenge of keeping rolls current in the face of constant demographic churn. Bihar, with its high rates of seasonal and permanent migration, faces the problem even more acutely.
Safeguards for Genuine Voters
Critics often raise the spectre of genuine voters being struck off the rolls. That risk exists in any administrative exercise of this scale. But the law itself anticipates this and provides a robust safeguard: the mechanism of claims and objections. Any voter who feels wrongly deleted can file a claim and have the entry restored. The statutory window is open, transparent, and well-publicised.
The problem lies not in the absence of remedy, but in the failure to use it. Political parties, instead of educating their supporters about filing claims and objections, often prefer to raise the temperature in public discourse. The result is more heat than light. The remedy exists; the responsibility is to guide citizens to use it.
Migration and the Franchise
It is important to underline that migration does not disqualify anyone from voting. A citizen from Bihar who settles in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, or Punjab has every right to be registered in the new state. What the law prevents is double registration — being a voter in both the place of origin and the place of migration. To allow such duplication would be to collapse the principle of equality in the franchise and risk multiple votes from the same individual.
Seen this way, the SIR is not a denial of voting rights but a reallocation of them to where they properly belong. It is about ensuring that a person votes once, and only once, in the place where he or she actually lives.
The Larger Democratic Interest
Mr. Lavasa’s call for caution is understandable. But caution must not mean hesitation or paralysis. The larger democratic interest demands that the rolls be accurate and current. If inflated lists are allowed to persist, faith in the electoral process will steadily erode. Voters must be confident that their single vote carries equal weight, not diminished by the presence of ghosts and duplicates.
This is not a matter of partisan politics but of institutional credibility. Every political party, regardless of its current position, benefits from accurate rolls in the long run. Yet too often, short-term expediency prevails, and inflated rolls are treated as a political asset rather than a democratic liability.
Image
In Summary
Citizenship is the foundation of the right to vote, but it is not the whole of it. To be a voter, one must also be of age and resident in the constituency where one seeks to exercise the franchise. Migration does not erode this right — it merely shifts it to a new place.
The SIR in Bihar, far from being an arbitrary purge, is a necessary exercise in democratic housekeeping. It must be accompanied by vigilance, transparency, and sensitivity to genuine cases, but it must not be derailed by misplaced fears or political noise.
India’s democracy rests on clarity: one citizen, one vote, in the place where one actually resides. To confuse citizenship with voter eligibility is to invite misunderstanding. To resist systematic revision is to undermine integrity. What is needed is not alarm but assurance, not suspicion but participation. Political parties, civil society, and citizens alike must engage with the process, use the remedies provided, and strengthen the foundation of electoral credibility.
A Final Word
One would have expected Mr. Lavasa to articulate the matter in a fair and objective manner. Perhaps, however, the circumstances surrounding his resignation as Election Commissioner have left an element of unconscious bias in his analysis. Misdirected debates weaken trust; clarity reinforces it. And in a democracy, clarity in defining the right to vote is non-negotiable.