RIGHT TO VOTE
1. Context
On July 10, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission (EC) to consider Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and ration cards as acceptable documents for the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. It has listed the batch of petitions challenging the EC’s decision for further hearing on July 28.
2. Background of the latest Controversy
- Electoral rolls in India are regularly updated by the Election Commission to ensure that all eligible citizens are included and ineligible names (such as those of deceased individuals or people who have moved away) are removed. Usually, this happens through Annual Summary Revisions.
- However, sometimes, a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is conducted, particularly when there are reports of major discrepancies in the electoral rolls or if there have been significant demographic changes.
- In Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered a Special Intensive Revision of the voter list, which involved house-to-house verification by booth-level officers (BLOs). This revision began in June 2024 and was set to continue till August, with the final roll expected to be published later
- The revision has been ordered after the conclusion of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and just months before the scheduled 2025 Bihar Assembly elections. Opposition parties, particularly the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), have raised concerns that the exercise might be used to manipulate voter lists in a way that could favor the ruling party at the state or central level.
- Opposition leaders and civil society groups have warned that the SIR could result in mass deletion of voters, especially among marginalised communities like Dalits, minorities, and migrant labourers who might not be present at home during the verification period.
- These groups are often the most vulnerable during such exercises due to lack of documentation or frequent change of residence.
Supreme Court response
- On July 10, the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission (EC) to accept Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid identity documents for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
- The Court also scheduled the next hearing on the group of petitions challenging the EC’s move for July 28. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the 'right to vote' lies at the heart of India’s democratic structure, drawing national attention to the core mechanisms behind the country’s electoral system and the origin of its policy of universal adult suffrage (UAS).
- India’s approach to the right to vote, as enshrined in its Constitution, stands in marked contrast to the historical trajectory seen in many Western nations. Influenced by thinkers such as J.S. Mill, who argued that voting should be reserved for the “educated” and denied to the “uninformed,” several countries began with a highly exclusive franchise.
- For instance, in the United Kingdom, voting was initially limited to male property holders. It wasn't until 1918 that all men gained voting rights, and women had to wait until 1928 to be included.
- Similarly, in the United States, while constitutional amendments—the 15th in 1870 and the 19th in 1920—technically extended voting rights to African Americans and women respectively, practical obstacles like poll taxes and literacy tests kept many citizens disenfranchised for decades
3. Universal Adult Suffrage in India
- Unlike many other countries that took a gradual approach to granting voting rights—often limiting them to elite sections and undergoing long, sometimes violent struggles—India adopted a bold and inclusive strategy from the very beginning.
- Instead of restricting suffrage, India chose universal adult franchise at the time of independence, embracing the principle of democratic equality from the outset. Article 326 of the Indian Constitution guaranteed every adult citizen the right to vote, regardless of their gender, caste, religion, education, or economic status.
- This was a progressive move, especially when compared to other nations that were still cautiously expanding voting rights. Initially, the voting age was set at 21, but it was later lowered to 18 by the 61st Constitutional Amendment in 1989.
- The nation’s strong commitment to inclusive democracy was further underlined by several landmark Supreme Court rulings, starting with the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973, which declared democracy a core feature of the Constitution’s ‘basic structure’.
- For democracy to thrive, it is essential that citizens retain the unchallenged right to choose their government freely—an essential pillar that must remain inviolable.
- This vision of inclusivity was implemented through two foundational laws: the Representation of the People Act of 1950, which oversees the creation and updating of electoral rolls, and the 1951 Act, which deals with the conduct of elections, eligibility of candidates, and electoral offences.
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) has consistently worked to fulfil this constitutional promise by introducing several administrative reforms. A notable example is the innovation introduced by Sukumar Sen, India’s first Chief Election Commissioner.
- Faced with the enormous task of registering 173 million mostly illiterate voters, he introduced the use of visual symbols for political parties—transforming a logistical challenge into a democratic milestone.
- In India, the ECI bears the crucial responsibility of ensuring that every eligible citizen, no matter how remote their location, can exercise their right to vote. As Winston Churchill aptly put it, “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper…” His words serve as a powerful reminder that the legitimacy of any democracy ultimately hinges on protecting and upholding the sanctity of the vote
4. Is Voting a Fundamental right in India?
- The nature of the ‘right to vote’ in India has been a topic of legal and constitutional debate for decades. During the framing of the Constitution, both Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and K.T. Shah had advocated for its inclusion as a fundamental right.
- However, the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee ultimately decided against this proposal. This position was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India case (2006), where a Constitution Bench ruled that the ‘right to elect’ is not a fundamental or constitutional right, but rather a statutory one derived from Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
- Although a two-judge bench in Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) referred to voting as a constitutional right, the earlier and more authoritative decision in Kuldip Nayar remains the guiding precedent.
- Again, in the 2023 Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court refrained from revisiting this issue, reaffirming that it had already been conclusively addressed in the Kuldip Nayar ruling.
- Justice Ajay Rastogi, however, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the right to vote stems from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of expression) and embodies the spirit of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
- Despite his reasoning, this remains a minority viewpoint, and under current jurisprudence, voting continues to be classified as a statutory entitlement.
- Still, courts have consistently emphasised that, even if not fundamental in a legal sense, the right to vote is deeply embedded in the democratic framework of the country.
- It serves as a vital mechanism through which citizens participate in governance and decision-making, making it essential to the functioning and legitimacy of the Indian Republic.
- As philosopher John Dewey aptly observed, democracy extends beyond a governmental system—it represents a broader social and ethical ideal
5. Significance of accuracy of electoral roll
- The foundation of free and fair elections lies in the accuracy of electoral rolls, as mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1950. When these rolls contain significant flaws—such as widespread omissions, inclusion of ineligible individuals, duplicate entries, or factual errors—it threatens the principle of “one person, one vote.”
- Such discrepancies open the door to impersonation, voter exclusion, or vote dilution, ultimately skewing the democratic verdict.
- To maintain the credibility of the electoral process, Section 21 of the 1950 Act grants the Election Commission (EC) the authority to compile and update electoral rolls as necessary.
- Although errors in voter lists are sometimes inevitable, the judiciary has consistently maintained that only major, systematic flaws that have a tangible impact on election results can call the validity of an election into question.
- Minor irregularities or isolated cases of disenfranchisement are not sufficient grounds for overturning results. Allegations of errors, such as those recently reported in Bihar, merit investigation.
- At the same time, it's important to recognise that cleansing voter rolls is essential—excluding a rightful voter weakens democracy, but so does allowing someone who is ineligible to remain on the list.
- Therefore, rather than obstructing the process, attention should be directed toward strengthening and refining it. The Supreme Court’s recommendation to accept a broader range of identity documents helps ensure that all legitimate voters retain their right to participate in elections.
- While the legal right to challenge or seek inclusion in the electoral rolls rests with individual citizens rather than political parties, the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (1985) emphasised that in a society with widespread illiteracy and limited political awareness, political parties have a responsibility to assist in ensuring that eligible voters are registered and ineligible names are removed.
- In a party-driven parliamentary system like India’s, such proactive engagement is essential for maintaining the credibility and integrity of elections
|
Qualification for an Ordinary resident
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission (EC) acts as the constitutional authority responsible for overseeing and managing the electoral process. One of its fundamental responsibilities is the preparation of reliable electoral rolls. This task is carried out in accordance with Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which stipulates that every Indian citizen who is at least 18 years old, ordinarily resides in a particular constituency, and is not otherwise disqualified, is eligible for registration as a voter. The term “ordinarily resident” refers to someone who has a genuine and continuous presence in a location, rather than a brief or temporary stay. For instance, a student residing in a hostel may not meet the criteria if their permanent residence is elsewhere and they intend to return there. However, simply being away from one’s usual place of residence temporarily does not disqualify someone from being considered an ordinary resident of that place. This standard helps prevent fake or misleading entries in the voter list and ensures that electors have a meaningful connection to the constituency they vote in, thereby reinforcing the principle of accountable and representative democracy |
6. Way forward
The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar and the wider discussions on electoral reforms underscore a fundamental principle of democracy: the strength of India’s democratic system relies on electoral rolls that are precise, inclusive, and easy to access. As the Supreme Court prepares to continue hearings on July 28, it is essential for the Election Commission to carry out the revision exercise with both diligence and inclusivity, ensuring the process remains fair and credible.
At the same time, it is crucial for citizens to be made aware of their role in the process—by checking and correcting their voter information, they become active participants in safeguarding electoral accuracy. Protecting the right to vote goes beyond fulfilling a legal mandate; it is a collective democratic duty that demands alert institutions, engaged and informed citizens, and progressive legal frameworks
|
For Prelims: Election Commission of India (ECI), Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951
For Mains: GS II - Polity and Governance
|
|
Previous Year Questions
1. The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system was used for the first time by the Election Commission of India in (UPSC CAPF 2019)
North Paravur Assembly Constituency, Kerala
B.Noksen Assembly Constituency, Nagaland
C.Mapusa Assembly Constituency, Goa
D.Nambol Assembly Constituency, Manipur
Answer (B)
|
Source: The Hindu
