Context

As the Election Commission of India (ECI) concludes the first phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar (by August 1, 2025), the process has sparked controversy.

Allegations have emerged of disenfranchisement—particularly of migrants, minorities, and the poor.

While some defend the ECI''s efforts to maintain electoral integrity, critics argue its methods are biased and exclusionary.

But both perspectives overlook a fundamental issue: India''s electoral framework is misaligned with its highly mobile, modern society.

Historical Roots of the Problem: A Legal Legacy Mismatched with Modern India

The Representation of the People Act, 1950, was formulated for an India where:

• Over 82% lived in rural areas.
• Less than 8% of the population was mobile.

It was assumed that voters would cast their ballots in their place of birth—a reasonable assumption in 1950, but outdated today.

India Today: A Country on the Move

• Over 450 million internal migrants account for nearly 37% of the population.
• Bihar reflects this mobility:
• 36% of its households have at least one migrant.
• 20% of its working-age population lives outside the state at any time.
• Around 1.2 million names were removed from electoral rolls in 2025, largely due to absenteeism during verification.

In migration-heavy districts, 5–7% of names were purged—effectively excluding voters forced to relocate for work.

Legal and Conceptual Disconnects: Citizenship vs. Residency

Conceptual Confusion

• Citizenship is a legal and constitutional identity.
• Residency, however, is the administrative basis for electoral enrollment.

This misplaced emphasis on residency denies political participation to internal migrants.
They are citizens without representation—trapped between hometowns they’ve left and host cities that exclude them.

The ECI’s Administrative Dilemma

The ECI adheres to a model of "administrative minimalism":

• Focused on rule-based compliance rather than justice-oriented reform.
• By rigidly enforcing current legal provisions—designed for a sedentary population—the ECI unintentionally facilitates systematic exclusion.

While the roll-cleansing appears neutral, the rules themselves are outdated and unsuited for a country in motion.

Global Best Practices: Learning from Other Democracies

Countries facing similar challenges have reimagined their systems to promote both integrity and inclusiveness:

• United States: Allows absentee and mail-in ballots, enabling voters to participate from wherever they live.
• Philippines: Facilitates absentee voting for its 1.8 million overseas workers, achieving over 60% turnout.
• Australia: Operates mobile polling stations in transient or remote communities, driving voter participation rates above 90%.

These examples show that inclusive electoral systems are possible—given political will and institutional innovation.

Political Exploitation and Public Awareness Gaps

Instead of solving the problem, political parties often exploit disenfranchisement as an electoral issue.

Practical safeguards like draft roll scrutiny or filing claims remain:

• Poorly communicated,
• Inaccessible due to illiteracy, and
• Impractical for migrant labourers.

Surveys reveal:

• Only 25% of migrants knew they could contest roll deletions.
• Over 60% of voters in Bihar were unaware of their rights in the process.

This leaves millions voiceless, uninformed, and politically invisible.

Conclusion: Towards an Inclusive Electoral System

Defending the ECI from political blame is necessary—but not enough.

Reform is essential.

• The trade-off between electoral integrity and inclusiveness is a false choice—caused by outdated legal assumptions.
• The ECI must go beyond procedural enforcement to actively advocate for reforms that reflect India’s demographic realities.

Shared Responsibility

• Lawmakers, civil society, and political parties must collaborate to:
• Educate migrants,
• Strengthen grievance mechanisms, and
• Ensure no citizen is excluded due to mobility.

India''s democracy can only thrive when it ensures that every citizen—regardless of where they live—has an equal voice at the ballot box.