The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar. There are at least two problems staring at us after the judgment. First, since the SIR was ordered ONLY to remove those voters who had migrated out of Bihar, there was no need to use documents which prove citizenship, instead ONLY documents proving residence would have sufficed. Second, making a fresh Voter ID card is much easier than proving to the Election Commission of India (ECI) that you still reside in the same constituency.
Why prove Citizenship again?
A Government ID is true. Or at least that is the presumption. Once you present your Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driver’s license etc. it is presumed that the card is true. You cannot be asked to verify the ID again and again. That is the point of an ID Card. It proves that you have already passed all the tests required to obtain that card AND that you need not be put through subsequent tests again. In this context let us look at the requirements for obtaining a Voter ID.
How do you get a Voter ID?
In order to vote in India you must:-
- be a citizen of India
- be of at least 18 years of age
- be residing in the constituency you vote
Therefore, you would be able to obtain a Voter ID only if you can prove the above three points. Conversely, once you obtain a Voter ID, you have already proved the above three points. The ECI is concerned that since 2003, people have migrated from Bihar, and this calls for a “Special” and “Intensive” Revision of the electoral rolls in the state.
The Problem!
- How has the ECI presumed that no one before 2003 would have migrated? How is the ECI sure that only people who have obtained their Voter IDs after 2003 have migrated out of Bihar? Ram Naresh, a resident of Samastipur, who had his Voter ID made in the year 1995 migrated to Indore in 2007. He has escaped the SIR since his Voter ID was made before 2003.
- Rahul had his Voter ID card made in the year 2015 in Patna. In order to obtain his Voter ID he submitted proof of the above three points (Citizenship, 18+, and residence). Now the ECI has doubts that he has moved out of Patna. Will that invalidate his entire Voter ID? If the ECI has doubts only regarding Rahul’s residence, why should Rahul have to prove his citizenship again? All he needs to prove is that he resides in Patna!
Once a Voter ID has been made it is the duty of the ECI to respect the same. A Voter ID is proof of citizenship, residence, and age. If at all Residence is to be proved, only residence should be proved. And this is where the Judgment goes wrong. Paras. 145 to 162 of the judgment discusses why certain Cards (not being conclusive proof of citizenship) cannot be used in the SIR process.
| Para 156-`157 | Aadhar is not conclusive proof of Citizenship |
| Para 158 | Ration Cards are not conclusive proof of Citizenship |
| Para 159 | EPIC cards cannot be utilised because they are a sub-category of electoral rolls itself. |
Lordship! Why am I proving my Citizenship again? I have done that. I already have an existing Voter ID. I am already in the electoral rolls. The ECI only wants me to prove my residence. And I can produce proof for that.
Make a new Voter ID or Prove your Residence?
Did you know? Making a new Voter ID would be much easier than proving your Voter ID in the SIR. For a new Voter ID you need to fill out a “Form 6” on the Election Commission’s website. In the form you need to provide:
- Proof of Date of Birth [Aadhar is accepted]
- Proof of Residence [Water/Electricity/Gas Bill, Aadhar Card, Rent Agreement etc.]
(If this interests you):-
- Copy of Form – 6 [here]
- Guidelines for filling out Form 6 [here]
- India Today Group’s live demonstration of making Voter ID ONLY using Aadhar Card [here]
So, you can make a Voter ID using an Aadhar Card, but you cannot use that same card when your Voter ID is being questioned? That too, when only the “residence” portion of your Voter ID is being questioned (not your Citizenship).
What does this mean?
- Don’t try to prove that your name in the electoral records are fair. Instead, let your name be cancelled, and make a new Voter ID after that.
- From a Governance perspective – Such a flimsy Form 6 leaves a back door open for possible ineligible voters to obtain Voter IDs. If Aadhar is not proof of citizenship it should not be used to make an Voter ID Card!
What is the Difference between Art. 324 and Art. 327
This is a slightly technically point. Feel free to skip.
I believe the Court is mistaken in its understanding of Art. 324, and Art. 327 of the Constitution. Upto para 40 of the judgment there is a very elaborate discussion where the Court is trying to balance Art. 324 and Art. 327.
I am reproducing an excerpt of the texts of these two Articles.
“The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).”
Art. 324(1)
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in Connection with, elections to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses.“
Art. 327
Reading both of them together, it gets confusing who really has the power to supervise elections. The Parliament, or the Election Commission? The Court reconciles this difference by saying that the Parliament can make a law supervising elections AND the Election Commission can also make a law on elections, but any law that Election Commission makes cannot oppose Parliament’s law.
“… The correct principle emerging therefrom is that parliamentary legislation under Article 327 undoubtedly regulates the electoral field, but the Commission Page 39 of 124 does not, for that reason, cease to be a constitutional authority acting in its own right under Article 324. The plenary powers afforded to the Commission under the constitution supplements the law where necessary to effectuate the constitutional mandate, but cannot be deployed to override an express statutory prohibition.”
Para 22 of the Judgment
This is a gravely mistaken interpretation. There cannot be two authorities making law on the same subject matter. So how do we reconcile these Articles? I think in order to maintain harmony the articles must be viewed loosely as a power-conferring, and an power-executing provision. Simply put, I mean, Art. 324 of the Constitution allows Parliament to make the laws on supervision, and control of Elections. But any law that is made by the Parliament with respect to conducting, or supervising elections HAS to be executed only and only by the Election Commission.
The essence of these sections is that Parliament can “make law”, BUT the “superintendence, direction and control” in executing that law must be done only by the Election Commission. I think this is the most probable interpretation because by granting law making power to Election Commission, could result in many unwanted outcomes, which might impact Universal Adult Franchise. On the other hand, giving power of execution of election procedures in the hands of the executive would also increase fears of an impartial election.
Leave a Reply