Parliament debate on SIR is welcome, will enrich it

BOTH THE Government and the Opposition dialling down their positions and agreeing to debate the Election Commission’s nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) by itself or as part of an agenda of electoral reforms is enormously welcome. Free and fair elections lie at the heart of the democratic compact; the cleaning and updating of electoral rolls is vital to ensure the integrity of the process. At the same time, it is necessary to keep the EC exercise open and responsive to concerns raised by voters, Opposition, and even within the EC. An investigation by this newspaper has shown that apprehensions provoked by the conduct of the SIR in Bihar had been flagged, presciently, by Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu when the order for the exercise was being finalised on June 24.

Commissioner Sandhu’s note of caution in the draft order urged that there should be no harassment of “genuine voters/citizens, particularly old, sick, PwD (persons with disabilities), poor and other vulnerable groups”. This was later amplified in the widespread criticism of the SIR. As a series of reports in this newspaper underlined, in a departure from past exercises, it shifted the burden of proof to the voter, set off a scramble for documents that were not readily available to meet unrealistic deadlines. To a large extent, the Supreme Court’s interventions helped in addressing fears of mass disenfranchisement. Notably, the SC directed inclusion of Aadhaar as proof of identity, though not of citizenship. This paper’s investigation also shows that the EC was mindful of another criticism early on, which continues to loom over the SIR. It has to do with the concern that the revision opens a backdoor route to a national Register of Citizens, or that the SIR shades into a test of citizenship, which is not the EC’s remit.

The draft order explicitly connected the SIR to the Citizenship Act. To justify the SIR, it cited the absence of any intensive revision of electoral rolls since the 2003 amendment to the Act. That this reference was deleted in the final SIR order is telling. It suggests that even as the EC goes ahead with the exercise, voices within are wary of its own limits. They know that, in a constitutional system, its ambit and powers are open to question. Now, Parliament must provide the space for all those questions to be asked, so that the search for answers can begin. And the EC should step back — and listen.