Introduction
The very essence of Electoral Democracy flourishes on transparency and accountability, particularly in the fundamental process of registration of voters. The right to the caste vote is the cornerstone of democratic governance, and any process or procedure violating this right must be made subject to public scrutiny. Recent progressions in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar, once again brought these principles to light, as the Supreme Court interceded in this process to ensure transparency in the deletion process around 65 lakh voters from the state’s electoral rolls.
Background
The controversy encircling Bihar’s Electoral Roll Revision surfaced from the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision exercise, causing the deletion of approximately 65 lakh voters from the state’s electoral rolls. This huge action by the Election Commission, conducted ahead of the upcoming assembly elections, raised serious questions about the transparency and fairness of the process. Many Political Parties, as well as several social groups, challenged this revision process, asserting that the deletion of approximately 65 lakh voters from the electoral roll was arbitrary and was done without any proper reasons or justification, potentially excluding legitimate and true voters.
The Special Intensive Revision in Bihar involved a full review of electoral rolls using enhanced documentation requirements. Contrary to the Summary revision procedure, which allowed only seven identity proofs, the special intensive revision allowed eleven identity proofs, giving flexibility to voters to choose any one from the given list and submit it. However, critics argue that despite the flexibility that was offered and the expanded documentation list, the SIR process resulted in the exclusion of voters that could affect the whole democratic procedure of the election.
This matter reached the Supreme Court by way of several petitions challenging the SIR procedure. The Supreme Court was told that the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar is being conducted in a way that creates substantial fraud on Bihar’s voters. These pleas invoked immediate judicial intervention to ensure procedural fairness and transparency.
Key Legal Principles
Several legal principles steered the Supreme Court’s take in this electoral controversy:
- Transparency in Democratic Processes: The Supreme Court has emphasised that any procedure that affects the fundamental democratic rights of the citizens must be handled and regulated with utmost transparency. The process has to be fair since the consequences of this procedure might result in the exclusion of several legitimate voters. This transparency principle appreciates that the electoral process may directly impact the citizens’ constitutional rights and therefore it calls for heightened scrutiny.
- Procedural Safeguards: The Court has made sure that the procedure must be non-exclusionary, acknowledging the importance of a proper documentation process. The Supreme Court went in support of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of the Bihar electoral roll. While hearing the petitions, the Supreme Court stated that, while it is important to maintain procedural safeguards, the Special Intensive Revision is not completely anti-voters.
- Due Process Requirement: The Supreme Court has mandated that the electoral process must be in accordance with due process, particularly when the outcome of the procedure will result in the removal of voters from the electoral rolls. This due process requirement includes giving proper reasons as to why the deletion was done and also providing proper opportunities for grievance redressal.
The Supreme Court Decision
-
- Directive of the Court: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission of India to publish the names of over 65 lakhs voters who were deleted from the electoral rolls and the reasons for such deletion, following the Special Intensive Revision done in Bihar. This direction ensures that the affected citizens can understand the grounds under which they were removed from the electoral rolls.
- Implementation Mechanism: The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to publish the list of names and reasons, like death, migration, duplication, etc, for the deletion of voters on the district’s electoral officer’s website. This publication mechanism ensures that there is now widespread accessibility to the reasons, and the concerned voters can be informed of the reasons as well. This implementation mechanism also ensures transparency in the proceedings.
- Balancing Concerns: While giving directions for the disclosure of the procedure, the Court also acknowledged the legitimacy of the Special Intensive Revision Process, while there were many petitions which stated that the Election Commission of India’s document verification process for the SIR process was anti-voters and exclusionary, the court rejected this contention stating that the expanded documentation options made the special intensive revision procedure clearly shows that the procedure was inclusionary an exclusionary one.
Recent Developments
The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates many important precedents for electoral governance in India, fundamentally remodelling the landscape of electoral transparency and accountability. By making the public disclosure of the names and the reasons for the deletion a mandate, the Supreme Court set a new norm for transparency and accountability in electoral processes, making sure that the citizens can verify the legitimacy of the electoral decisions that would affect their voting rights. This direction by the Supreme Court creates a framework where the electoral authorities can be held responsible for their actions, as the records were asked to be published, which makes it easier to identify and challenge the arbitrary removal of voters from the electoral rolls. This intervention of the Supreme Court in Bihar’s Electoral revision reflects a strong foundation of electoral democracy and reflects on larger concerns about electoral integrity and the participation of citizens in democratic processes. The Supreme Court, by guaranteeing a transparent electoral process, allows all eligible citizens to participate in the democratic process of election. This decision of the Supreme Court also helped to solidify the integrity of India’s Electoral System.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India’s direction to the Election Commission of India to publish the reason for the deletion of 65 million voters is a landmark moment for democratic transparency and accountability. The Court noted that steps taken in any of these processes must be conducted in a reasonable manner to avert the extreme risk of voters being disenfranchised. The decision of the Supreme Court states that although the electoral authorities have the right and duty to manage the voter rolls, such rights must be exercised in a manner that is transparent and provides accountability to the public. By mandating publicly the reasons for deletion, the Court has provided that the SIR processes in Bihar, and by extension, similar exercises in other jurisdictions, will be conducted with greater transparency and accountability. This decision corroborates the principle that in a democracy, the processes that affect citizens’ fundamental rights have to be done in a transparent manner, with appropriate reasons provided to those who are affected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
