The Election Commission has placed the onus of proof on the citizen, conflating the processes of updating the voter list and verifying citizenship validity, resulting in fear and anxiety stemming from an abject lack of communication.
Two senior bureaucrats, who had earlier participated in the electoral process, spoke to Metro, highlighting the differences between this year’s special intensive revision (SIR) and the exercise conducted in 2002.
Bureaucrat 1
Electoral rolls have been traditionally seen as incrementally evolved documents. In other words, over the decades, the voters’ rolls have changed incrementally or gradually.
Classically, the Election Commission would publish a draft roll and invite claims and objections. One could claim inclusion, or one could object to other names. The claims and objections were then disposed of in a quasi-judicial manner.
There was no fundamental distrust of all the past efforts or about the names evolved in a cumulative manner. The Election Commission wanted a revision that was meant as an upgrade.
This time, in the name of special intensive revision, the entire past is suspected. In fact, it is worse. The entire past is comprehensively rejected. If a citizen does not fill out a form this time, his or her name may or shall be rejected from the entire roll immediately. This is what the EC circular reads like.
Either this reading is correct, in which case it is a dangerous proposition; or the reading is incorrect, in which case the EC has led itself to a serious communication disaster. Neither of the two alternatives is a sensible course.
I would urge the EC to clearly spell out whether they are doubting all the voters’ names in the current electoral rolls. If not, why is it making a simple procedure of filling out a form look so absolutely draconian? In case we are being led to misconstrue the EC’s intentions, why are there no advertisements, no media conferences, no FAQs to dispel our anxiety?
Earlier, there used to be practically daily media conferences from the commission’s top officers. In an age of electronic and digital media, it is so easy for a public system to reach out to the citizens, and yet we see silence and opacity.
This is stupefying. This is generating questions, doubts and suspicions in all quarters. This is thoroughly avoidable.
I urge the EC officials to be forthcoming, with precise information, straightforward communications and unimpeachable clarity.
Bureaucrat 2
In 2002, when the intensive revision exercise was done, the voters had to give a self-declaration if there were any changes, inclusions or deletions. On the basis of the declaration, the voters’ list was modified after due enquiry.
If someone challenged the citizenship or age of the voter, there would be an investigation and, if it was proved that the person was giving a false declaration, he or she would face punishment under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
There was a full house-to-house survey also in 2002.
In 2025, one has to fill up a form and also show documents. So, unlike in 2002, the burden of proof is on the citizen. I think the law is the same, the rules are the same. But it seems the instructions have changed.
There are four types of citizenships in India: by birth, descent, registration and
naturalisation.
In case of the last two, the government gives a citizenship document. However, there are only a few citizens in the last two categories. For the first two, under which the majority of the population comes, there is no such document.
Aadhaar was supposed to be such a document, and it was embedded with biometrics, a photograph and other details. Now, we have been told Aadhaar is not enough.
I also feel the Election Commission has to function within its own laws and rules. The EC’s role is to revise the voters’ lists. But the SIR is linked to citizenship, which is the purview of the Union home ministry and not the EC.
There is another technical difference. In 2002, when the SIR exercise was initiated, there was no election the next year.
So, there was long time for the elaborate exercise. This time, the elections are around the corner and so there is pressure of time, which makes the job fraught with the risk of wrongful omission of names.
The lack of credible communication is causing mass anxiety, the kind missing in 2002.