Introduction

India’s democratic framework is increasingly failing one of its most vulnerable populations: internal migrants. A stark example is unfolding in Bihar, where the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has led to the deletion of nearly five million voters—representing 4.4% of the total electorate. These individuals were marked as “permanently migrated” after being absent during house-to-house verification processes. However, migration in Bihar is not an anomaly or an economic choice—it is often a matter of survival. Despite this, the bureaucratic interpretation of mobility as a renunciation of citizenship rights is leading to large-scale, quiet disenfranchisement. Millions now find themselves without the right to vote, either in the places where they work or where they come from, creating a silent but profound democratic deficit.

The Structural Exclusion of the Migrant in India’s Electoral System

·       At the heart of the problem lies India’s electoral infrastructure, which is still predicated on the notion of a sedentary citizen—someone with a fixed, verifiable, and continuous residence. For migrants who move frequently or live in informal and precarious housing—rented rooms, construction sites, slums, or even on pavements—establishing proof of residence becomes a formidable barrier. Voter registration is dependent on physical verification and documentary evidence that many migrants cannot provide.

·       This systemic flaw is compounded by regional political dynamics. Migrants are often viewed in host states with suspicion—as outsiders, job competitors, or agents of political disruption. As a result, there is widespread resistance to their inclusion in local electoral rolls, driven by fears that their votes might shift political equations. Movements demanding domicile-based quotas and local hiring further cement this hostility. Simultaneously, migrants are being removed from electoral rolls in their home states simply because they are absent during verification drives. The result is a form of double exclusion: migrants are politically invisible both where they reside and where they originate from.

Empirical Evidence of Migrant Exclusion

A 2015 study conducted by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), with support from the Election Commission of India, affirmed that migrants remain overwhelmingly excluded from the electoral processes of their host states. The report highlighted a triple burden faced by migrants: stringent administrative requirements such as proof of address, low digital literacy which hampers access to online electoral services, and social marginalisation, where they are cast as political outsiders. Most importantly, the study established a direct link between states with high rates of out-migration and significantly lower voter turnout figures.

Bihar’s SIR and Its Contribution to the Democratic Deficit

Instead of addressing this democratic vacuum, Bihar’s recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise has only deepened it. Nearly 3.5 million migrants risk being permanently disenfranchised because they were not present at the time of house-to-house verification. The state already suffers from chronically low voter participation, averaging just 53.2% across the last four assembly elections. In contrast, states like Gujarat and Karnataka, with far fewer outbound migrants, consistently record much higher voter turnouts—66.4% and 70.7% respectively. Rather than closing the participation gap, Bihar’s administrative measures risk institutionalising it.

Migration Patterns and Their Electoral Consequences

Data from mobile visitor location registers shows an annual outflow of about 7 million circular migrants from Bihar, with an additional 8 million engaging in seasonal migration between June and September. Significantly, nearly half of these migrants return home during festivals like Durga Puja, Chhath, and Deepavali. However, in years when elections coincide with these returns, many find themselves unable to vote, having been removed from the rolls in their absence. Without coordination between sending and receiving states, this becomes a systemic denial of electoral rights. Migrants, who contribute significantly to the economies of their host states while remaining emotionally and socially tied to their home states, are treated as politically irrelevant in both.

Parallel Challenges in Welfare Portability: The ONORC Example

The disenfranchisement of migrant workers finds a close parallel in the operational challenges of the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) scheme. Since its inception in 2019, the programme was designed to ensure food security across state lines, but its success among Bihari migrants has been limited. As of May 2025, only about 3 lakh households had availed themselves of ration portability outside Bihar. The reasons mirror the electoral exclusions: the duality of migrant life (economic activity in one state, legal entitlements in another), fear of losing access to welfare benefits, and bureaucratic hurdles in unfamiliar states. Just as with ration cards, voter identity documents are retained in home states for safety, but they fail to provide enfranchisement where migrants actually live and work.

Reimagining Electoral Inclusion: A Portable Voter Identity System

·       Addressing this democratic crisis requires systemic reforms that recognise the mobility of India’s working poor. Portable and flexible voter identity systems must be developed so that migrants are not penalised for their mobility. The Election Commission must replace blanket deletions with a more nuanced approach, possibly by cross-verifying with rolls in destination states to prevent duplication while preserving rights. Grassroots institutions such as panchayats and civil society groups should be empowered and resourced to conduct migrant outreach programmes and facilitate voter re-registration.

·       States like Kerala have already begun conducting detailed migration surveys. Replicating this model in high-migration states such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh could provide the basis for a more inclusive and dynamic electoral roll. These surveys would help track mobility patterns and ensure that returning migrants are re-enfranchised in time for elections. Unless these reforms are implemented, India may witness the largest silent voter purge in its post-Independence history—affecting precisely those who leave their homes in search of dignity, livelihood, and survival.

Conclusion

India’s democracy, if it is to retain its foundational promise of universality and inclusion, cannot afford to ignore the plight of its migrant citizens. The ongoing disenfranchisement of millions due to rigid and outdated electoral frameworks amounts to a structural failure of democratic governance. Migration, especially among the poor, should not be mistaken for political disengagement or abandonment of citizenship. On the contrary, it reflects the resilience and agency of individuals striving for a better life. Unless India''s electoral systems evolve to accommodate this reality, the country risks creating a democracy that works only for the immobile and the privileged—leaving behind a vast population that is mobile, marginalised, and voiceless.