Time to revisit Special Intensive Revision

THIS has been a year of good monsoon with no noticeable sandstorms save the dust raised by the Election Commission of India (ECI) winnowing the electoral rolls of Bihar through an unprecedented process named the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The dust turned into a virtual storm because the state elections are to follow.

Political parties and civil society organisations have raised the spectre of mass disenfranchisement and dragged the ECI to the Supreme Court (SC). Sixty days after the launch of the SIR and several hearings by the SC, the dust hasn’t settled.

Meanwhile, the SC passed two interim orders interpreted by the petitioners as vindication of their stand and by the ECI as an endorsement of its proclaimed intent and indubitable authority to carry on with the exercise. The petitioners claim partial victory; the ECI is equally determined to demonstrate its triumph. It is like an uphill run in which the runners feel rehydrated by an energy-boosting drink along the way. No one questions the unjustified gradient of the forced climb. Both parties seem to be panting as they attempt to prove their point.

The SC appears to back the ECI with one hand and help the elector with the other, apparently easing the burden of proof the poll panel has unduly cast on the voters. The two SC orders essentially ask the ECI to do what it was always known for -- be transparent and ease compliance by accepting a document that is easily available.

With the SC slated to hear the case on September 8, it is hard to say at this stage where this exercise is headed, but it is time to dispassionately look at its purpose and evaluate the process followed by the ECI to achieve that purpose. Fair ends must be achieved by fair means. Attributing motives to the ECI other than what it publicly stated would lead to greater contumely; examining the procedure employed would be more instructive.

The ECI has already announced that all states must go through the rigorous SIR exercise next year. In some states, the preliminary work might have begun. Can some lessons be learnt from the ongoing SIR? Can the SC and the ECI cobble together an acceptable framework that achieves the purpose of purification without causing confusion and inconvenience to the electorate in securing their constitutional right? Can Bihar be the pilot to pave a smoother path for the rest of the country?

The right framework can be evolved if the right questions are raised regarding the procedure employed in the current revision as stipulated in the ECI’s June 24 order, including the unanswered questions pertaining to the exercise thus far:

n Why is the ECI order on the intensive revision of Bihar electoral rolls in 2003 not in the public domain for people to assess the change in procedure and its rationale?

n How did the EC verify death/permanent migration of those who didn’t submit the enumeration forms as no house-to-house survey or field investigation was stipulated? Did it consult any authorised record or was this based on hearsay?

n If the enumeration forms are prefilled based on existing ECI data, leaving no scope for the elector to correct an error, would the ECI not inherit the errors and leave the rolls unpurified to that extent?

The poll panel would understandably be under pressure to show the efficiency of its exercise, but if all that it succeeds in doing is de-duplication and removing dead electors, where was the need to subject every elector to a stress test? In removing those who have supposedly ‘migrated’ but are keen on voting in the place where they belong, is the ECI not restricting their choice of participating in the political process of the place of their preference?

After all, NRIs have the right to vote at the place of their claimed origin even if they ordinarily reside elsewhere, and so do defence personnel and parliamentarians. The ECI should not choose for them; they should be free to make their choice based on their democratic inclinations. A migrant worker might lead a peripatetic existence and feel that he belongs where he has his land, family or moorings. The compassionate approach that the ECI has hitherto followed must imbue its zeal for correctness.

The ECI has a reputation of being sound on protocols, managing the most arduous exercise through elaborate and meticulous standard operating procedures, which it drills down to its machinery through repeated training. That its instructions lacked clarity in the Bihar SIR is surprising.

For example, it should spell out in detail the basis on which booth-level officers (BLOs) are expected to make their recommendations on the enumeration forms submitted by the electors, which was not clearly specified in Bihar. Similarly, the criterion for scrutiny by the supervisory officers of cases not recommended by BLOs and the stage of the scrutiny should be clearly stated. This, too, was unclear in Bihar. It is puzzling why the ECI didn’t disclose the number of enumeration forms out of the 7.24 crore received till July 25 without the prescribed documents. Why is it that thereafter the ECI stopped disclosing the number of electors submitting documents daily?

While adhering to the letter and spirit of Article 326 of the Constitution regarding eligibility, the ECI needn’t explicitly dabble in determining citizenship, something that it has avoided in the past but which it unnecessarily emphasised in its June 24 order.

The SIR has so far not removed any significant number on account of non-citizenship, a valid ground for ineligibility. Those not included in the draft electoral for having “permanently shifted” cannot be termed “ineligible” as per Article 326. They are ‘ineligible’ to be included in the rolls of the polling station that they were earlier in without their ‘citizenship’ being questioned. Therefore, separating the pre-2003 and post-2003 electors on the basis of “presumed citizenship” was fallacious and created an avoidable storm over the ECI’s motives, exposing it to the accusation of overreach.

A comprehensive exercise of this nature cannot be abrupt in its timing, aggressive in its procedure and ambitious in its scope. The SIR shouldn’t be perceived as a surprise raid of an enforcement agency that leaves people scampering to save their voting right. It is a civilised, rule-based act of removing aberrations, discrepancies and irregularities that might have crept into the system. It should not be difficult for an august body such as the EC to convince people of the common purpose and seek their cooperation in weeding out those ineligible.

Let us learn from our wise farmers who don’t threaten the crop while trying to remove the weeds.

Ashok Lavasa is former Election Commissioner.