Context

Drawing from Homer’s Odyssey, where King Odysseus had to navigate between the six-headed monster Scylla and the deadly whirlpool Charybdis, today''s Indian democracy presents a similar dilemma for millions of migrant workers. During the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI), numerous migrant labourers, particularly from Bihar, have found their names omitted. Caught between rigid legal interpretations and political constraints, these citizens must now navigate a bureaucratic maze that threatens their fundamental right to vote.

Legal Foundation: Understanding ‘Ordinarily Resident’

The Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 governs electoral roll inclusion in India.

·       Section 19: Voters must be ordinarily resident in a constituency — a safeguard against false registrations and to maintain the electoral roll’s integrity.

·       Section 20: Clarifies that merely owning property doesn’t qualify one as a resident, and short-term absences don’t negate residency.

·       Section 20A (added in 2010): Allows NRIs to vote based on their passport address.

Under SIR, voters absent during field verification or failing to complete necessary forms were classified as “permanently shifted/not found” and removed. However, this administrative approach doesn’t reflect the socio-economic realities of migrant workers who, despite long absences, often maintain family ties, property, and habitual residence in their home constituencies.

The 1999 Gauhati High Court ruling (ECI vs Dr. Manmohan Singh) defined ordinary residence as a sustained, habitual link with a place, not just physical presence — a definition many migrants still meet in relation to their native areas.

Migrant Labour in India: Scope of the Challenge

According to the 2020–21 Periodic Labour Force Survey, approximately 11% of India’s population — around 15 crore individuals — are migrant workers. Economic pressures force them to migrate, often alone, live in unstable accommodations, and frequently shift between states. Yet, their core social and political identity — including familial, property, and emotional ties — often remains rooted in their home states. This dichotomy between their physical and political identities complicates their eligibility under current legal standards.

Legal Avenues vs Political Realities

While the RP Act technically allows migrant workers to register at their place of current residence, real-world barriers make this difficult:

·       Lack of Documents: Many migrants lack the formal address proof required for voter registration at their new location.

·       Political Resistance: Host states often resist inclusion of migrants, fearing electoral distortion by transient populations unfamiliar with local issues.

This creates a paradox:

·       In home constituencies, they risk removal due to prolonged absence.

·       In work constituencies, they face resistance, bureaucratic obstacles, and suspicion.

Thus, while legally entitled to vote, many migrant workers are effectively disenfranchised.

Wider Democratic Context

This challenge mirrors broader democratic concerns:

·       Urban Voter Apathy: In cities, despite proximity to polling stations, nearly half the electorate abstains from voting.

·       NRIs: Legally allowed to vote but often unable to return during elections.

These examples suggest that low voter turnout shouldn’t justify exclusion.
Rather, the state must work to facilitate participation for all eligible voters, including migrants.

The Way Forward: Inclusive Solutions

India can improve migrant voting access without overhauling legal foundations:

1.     Polling Day Enforcement: Strictly enforce statutory holidays for all eligible workers on election days.

2.     Transport Support: Provide special trains, buses, and subsidised travel to enable return home for voting.

3.     Paid Leave: Employers could offer paid time off for election participation.

Additionally, technological innovation offers promise:

·       The 2023 pilot of a Multi-Constituency Remote Electronic Voting Machine (RVM) by the ECI showed potential, allowing voters from up to 72 constituencies to vote remotely.

·       Though political objections stalled the initiative, with further development, secure remote voting systems could align mobility with franchise.

Long-term, Parliament could consider amending the RP Act to explicitly protect the voting rights of migrant labourers, ensuring that the law evolves to reflect economic migration patterns and social ties.

Conclusion

Migrant workers today face an electoral conundrum akin to Odysseus’s perilous voyage — caught between the legal rigidity of electoral definitions and the political reluctance to accommodate mobility. Though the law offers two avenues — voting from their native constituency or registering in their current location — both are littered with practical and political hurdles.

Securing the right to vote for India’s migrant workers is not merely a legal formality; it is an affirmation of equal citizenship and democratic participation. The path forward is narrow, but with policy will, technological innovation, and inclusive governance, India can ensure that no citizen is left behind in its electoral journey.