Context

• The Supreme Court of India has recently raised urgent and uncomfortable questions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
• While the ECI claims this is a routine technical update, the process and its potential consequences suggest a deeper, more troubling shift, one that risks undermining the democratic foundation of India’s electoral system.

The Problematic Aspect of Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

• From Inclusion to Exclusion
  • Traditionally, India’s electoral system has operated on the presumption of inclusion. Citizens were presumed eligible to vote unless proven otherwise.
  • However, the Bihar SIR represents a stark reversal of this principle.
  • Now, every voter must prove citizenship through fresh documentation, including rare documents like birth certificates and passports, within an unreasonably short one-month window. Failure to comply risks disenfranchisement.
  • The stated goal of accuracy conceals a deeper ideological transformation.
  • This policy marks a shift from administrative facilitation to bureaucratic obstruction, where access to the franchise is no longer a guaranteed right but a privilege contingent on documentation.
  • For millions of marginalised Indians, the poor, the illiterate, those living in remote or disaster-prone areas, meeting such demands is nearly impossible.
  • Aadhaar cards and ration cards, commonly held by the poor, are not accepted. In Bihar alone, over 6.5 million people may be disenfranchised.
• A Betrayal of Constitutional Promises
  • India’s founding vision, as articulated by B.R. Ambedkar and implemented by the first Chief Election Commissioner Sukumar Sen, was bold and revolutionary: universal adult suffrage regardless of caste, gender, literacy, or wealth.
  • Despite massive logistical challenges and a largely illiterate population, India’s first elections were inclusive and empowering.
  • Today’s ECI, under the leadership of its 26th Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, appears to have abandoned this legacy.
  • By demanding documents that most Indians lack, it raises the bar for participation. What was once a right has become an obstacle course.

Historical Parallels: Legal Facades, Political Motives

• The disenfranchisement underway in India echoes the Jim Crow era in the United States, where African-Americans were systematically denied the vote through literacy tests, poll taxes, and bureaucratic roadblocks.
• Though cloaked in legality, these mechanisms served to suppress vulnerable communities.
• India has robust constitutional and legal protections: Supreme Court judgments like Md. Rahim Ali vs State of Assam (2024) and Lal Babu Hussein vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995) underscore the illegality of arbitrary disenfranchisement.
• Yet, bureaucratic processes today often ignore the spirit of these rulings. The ECI insists on technical compliance, while ignoring the social, logistical, and ethical ramifications.

Broader Implication of SIR: A Constitutional Crisis in Slow Motion

• What is happening is not simply administrative malpractice and it appears to be the creeping onset of a quiet Emergency.
• No tanks roll through the streets, but millions are silently removed from voter rolls.
• The state, through omission and commission, is making the right to vote conditional, not on citizenship per se, but on an ability to navigate complex documentation and deadlines.
• This erosion of democratic rights calls for resistance from all quarters, the judiciary, civil society, and the general public.
• The Supreme Court’s pointed questioning of the ECI is a step in the right direction, but subtle nudges are no longer enough.
• Assertive judicial intervention is needed to protect the core values of the Constitution.

The Way Ahead: Reclaiming the Republic

• Historian Ornit Shani reminds us that India’s commitment to universal franchise was not an administrative convenience, but an audacious moral and political decision.
• That achievement must not be undone under the guise of vigilance or technical rigor because elections are not competitive exams.
• The vote is not a license granted by a bureaucrat. It is a declaration of belonging, that every citizen, regardless of background, is an equal participant in the republic.
• The shift from presumed inclusion to presumptive exclusion fundamentally alters the nature of that belonging.
• In a country as diverse and unequal as India, democratic participation is one of the few instruments of empowerment available to the marginalised.
• If the right to vote becomes conditional on inaccessible documents, it becomes a privilege for the documented elite, the urban, salaried, tech-savvy class, while the poor and displaced are locked out.

Conclusion

• At its core, this is not just about voter lists. It is about power: who has it, who gets to claim it, and who is excluded from it.
• If disenfranchisement continues unchecked, India risks becoming a democracy in name only, where only the counted are heard, and the uncounted are forgotten.
• The ECI must be reminded of its constitutional duty: to facilitate, not frustrate, the democratic process.
• The Supreme Court must act decisively, not just cautiously and citizens must reclaim the right to vote as a birthright, not a privilege proven through paperwork.