The controversy around "citizenship" in the Bihar poll roll revision arises because the Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated a special intensive revision (SIR) ahead of the elections, requiring voters who were not on the rolls in 2003 to prove their citizenship along with their parents' citizenship. This has raised concerns about potential mass disenfranchisement and exclusion, especially for those who lack the required documents to prove their status.
Here are the key clarifications and context:

• The Constitution's Article 324 empowers the ECI to supervise elections and maintain electoral rolls, and Article 326 mandates that only Indian citizens aged 18 or older can vote.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, governs voter qualifications and electoral roll preparation, reinforcing that only citizens are eligible to be voters.
• The last comprehensive revision in Bihar was done in 2003; voters registered before then are presumed citizens unless proven otherwise, while those registered afterward must prove citizenship with documents such as birth certificates or parents' birth details.
• Critics argue that this filtering could disenfranchise millions due to the difficulty in producing such documents, especially in Bihar where literacy and record-keeping are poor. Opposition parties claim it disproportionately affects minorities like Muslims, raising fears of political manipulation.
• The SIR process excludes common biometric ID (Aadhaar) as proof, requiring specific documents which many vulnerable voters lack, hence the concern about exclusion and potential linkage to a larger National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise.
• The Election Commission denies any intent to disenfranchise and emphasizes the exercise is to clean up the rolls from deceased, duplicate, or illegal voters.
• Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa pointed out procedural ambiguities in the exercise, raising questions on how citizenship decisions will be made at booth-level and what happens if voters fail to provide documents, stressing that the ECI is not the authority to decide citizenship.
• In summary, "citizenship" verification during Bihar’s poll roll revision is a legally backed but controversial exercise aimed at cleaning voter rolls, with serious concerns about potential exclusion of genuine voters due to stringent documentary requirements and the timing just before elections.

 How does the EC define 'citizenship' for voter verification in Bihar?

The Election Commission (EC) of India defines "citizenship" for voter verification in Bihar primarily through documentary proof as part of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Specifically, the EC requires any person whose name is not in the 2003 electoral roll to submit at least one of 11 specified documents to establish their eligibility to vote, which includes proof of age and citizenship. This is because only Indian citizens aged 18 or above can be registered as voters under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Key points outlining the EC’s definition and requirements for citizenship proof in Bihar include:

• The 2003 electoral roll is treated as prima facie proof of citizenship. Voters registered before 2003 are generally not required to submit additional documents.
• For those added to the rolls after 2003 (about 2.93 crore people), the EC demands documentation proving citizenship (such as birth certificates or parents’ birth details). The burden of proof lies on these new voters.
• The EC’s prescribed documents exclude common IDs like Aadhaar and ration cards, which has been criticized as causing difficulties in proving citizenship, especially among vulnerable populations.
• The verification process during this revision involves Booth Level Officers conducting a house-to-house survey to confirm the documents and citizenship eligibility.
• The rationale given by the EC includes addressing concerns over illegal or foreign migrants, frequent migration, young voters becoming eligible, and updating records of deceased or duplicate entries.
• Despite criticisms, the EC maintains that verifying citizenship based on these documents is necessary to maintain accurate voter rolls without including ineligible voters.
• Thus, the EC operationalizes "citizenship" for voter verification by relying on documentary evidence demonstrating an applicant’s and their parents’ status as Indian citizens, with particular emphasis on those not already on the 2003 roll. The verification focuses on legal and procedural compliance under the Constitution and electoral laws, aiming to exclude illegal or fictitious voters while including all genuine citizens who can prove their status.
• This approach has been legally and politically contested, with challenges to the EC’s authority and the document criteria continuing in courts. Nonetheless, this is the framework the EC follows for defining and verifying citizenship in the Bihar poll roll revision.

The Election Commission's (EC) requirement for documentary proof of citizenship in Bihar's electoral roll revision has triggered several key legal challenges:

• Contradiction with Supreme Court rulings: Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), argue that the EC's special intensive revision (SIR) and demand for citizenship proof contradict past Supreme Court decisions. These rulings held that existing voters on the rolls, especially those registered before 2003, have prima facie proof of citizenship, and the burden of disproving citizenship lies on objectors, not on voters themselves.
• Burden of proof on voters: The EC imposes documentary proof requirements on voters added after 2003 to prove citizenship, effectively shifting the burden of proof onto voters rather than the EC or objectors. This is legally contested as inconsistent with established procedures under the Representation of the People Act and related laws.
• Exclusion of commonly accepted documents: The EC excludes Aadhaar and ration cards from acceptable citizenship documents despite their widespread use for official identity verification (such as passports and caste certificates). Critics argue this exclusion is arbitrary and unjustified, potentially disenfranchising many voters who lack the 11 narrowly defined documents on the EC list.
• Authority to verify citizenship: The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the EC’s authority to determine citizenship status, which traditionally falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The EC asserts its constitutional power to verify citizenship eligibility for voter registration, but this is questioned legally, especially around how quasi-judicial decisions by election officers might impact voters whose documents are deemed insufficient.
• Timing and potential disenfranchisement: The legal challenges also argue that the SIR timing, just before elections, risks disenfranchising millions of genuine voters, particularly from poor, migrant, and minority communities who may lack the prescribed documents. This has led to allegations of political bias and discrimination, forming the basis for public interest litigations.
• Lack of a legally valid citizenship document: Another legal point is that no single document definitively proves citizenship in India, and the EC’s list contains documents that indicate identity but may not legally establish citizenship. This legal ambiguity complicates the verification process and may expose the EC to judicial scrutiny.
• In essence, the legal challenges stem from concerns over constitutional rights, procedural fairness, the legitimacy of the EC’s authority to verify citizenship, the exclusion of widely accepted identity documents, the shifting of burden of proof onto voters, and the risk of mass voter disenfranchisement.
• These issues are actively being litigated in the Supreme Court, with hearings ongoing to determine the legality and scope of the EC's citizenship proof requirements in the Bihar poll roll revision.

How might the revision process affect voter turnout in Bihar elections?

• The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Bihar could have a significant impact on voter turnout in the upcoming elections due to several factors:
• The revision involves door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) who distribute forms and require voters, especially those added post-2003, to prove their citizenship with specific documents. This process aims to remove ineligible voters but also risks excluding genuine electors who lack proper documentation, particularly poor, migrant, and marginalized groups like Muslims and Dalits.
• Political parties have expanded their network of booth-level agents drastically to assist in voter verification and mobilization, signaling concern that the revision could affect turnout. Agents help illiterate or vulnerable voters with form filling and document submission, potentially reducing exclusion and improving turnout if effectively deployed.
• However, critics argue the timeline for revision is very tight, placing pressure on voters to get documents quickly, leading to fears of disenfranchisement. The opposition claims the revision could disproportionately impact certain communities' electoral participation, creating political tensions and distrust in the process.
• The Election Commission stresses that its goal is to ensure only eligible voters are on the rolls and to facilitate genuine voters, especially vulnerable groups, suggesting the process, if properly conducted, could lead to more accurate rolls and possibly improved turnout by removing confusion over eligibility.
• Floods affecting large parts of Bihar might hamper house-to-house verification, posing practical challenges that could affect voter registration completeness and turnout.
• In summary, while the revision process seeks to cleanse and update the voter list for better electoral integrity, challenges related to document requirements, timing, political distrust, and logistical hurdles may reduce voter turnout by excluding or discouraging some voters. Conversely, enhanced outreach and agent deployment by political parties may counterbalance this and help maintain or even increase turnout in some areas.
• This revision could therefore reshape Bihar's electoral landscape by affecting which voters participate and how well parties organize at the grassroots level.

 
UPSC EXAM NOTES ANALYSIS
 
 Citizenship clarity

• It is a basic constitutional requirement that only Indian citizens can be registered as voters. Consequently, individuals who are not citizens are ineligible not only to vote but also to contest elections as legislators.
• In this context, it is surprising that some experienced politicians have objected to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar—where Assembly elections are due soon—on the grounds that citizenship verification should not be conducted. Such objections reveal a lack of understanding of constitutional provisions and the functioning of the electoral system.
• Article 324 of the Indian Constitution entrusts the ECI with the authority to supervise, direct, and control the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.
• Article 326 further establishes that elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures are based on adult suffrage, permitting only Indian citizens aged 18 and above—who are not otherwise disqualified—to vote. Therefore, a non-citizen is not legally eligible to be enrolled as a voter in any election.
• To operationalize these provisions, Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which lays down rules for electoral roll preparation and constituency delimitation. The preamble of the Act states its purpose—to regulate seat allocation, voter qualifications, and electoral roll processes, as well as related electoral matters.
• Under Section 15, the preparation of electoral rolls is carried out under the oversight of the ECI. Section 16 outlines disqualifications for voter registration, specifically stating under subsection (1)(a) that non-citizens cannot be registered. Subsection (2) mandates the removal of any such names already included.
• Further, Section 20 defines who qualifies as an "ordinarily resident" in a constituency. Sections 21 to 24 cover how rolls are prepared, corrected, and updated. Section 24, in particular, allows aggrieved persons to appeal against inclusion or exclusion decisions.
• However, Section 23(3) imposes a restriction: no changes can be made to the electoral roll after the final date for filing nominations in an ongoing election.
• In summary, the legal and constitutional framework makes it unequivocally clear that only Indian citizens can be listed on the electoral rolls. Any erroneous inclusions can and must be rectified under the provisions of the 1950 Act

The Act is structured into several parts:

• Part-IIA covers the appointment of Electoral Registration Officers and their assistants.
• Part-IIB and Part-III concern electoral rolls for parliamentary and assembly constituencies, respectively.

 
Duties of Election Commission of India

• It is the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) constitutional obligation to verify electoral rolls for any inclusion of non-citizens if a complaint or doubt is raised. Simply put, the ECI and its officers have no legal authority to include a non-citizen in the voter list—doing so would be invalid from the start.
• Therefore, upon receiving a request for inclusion or a complaint indicating that a non-citizen has been registered, it becomes the ECI’s responsibility to conduct a proper investigation and, if confirmed, remove the non-eligible name.
• Failure to do this would amount to a dereliction of the ECI’s constitutional duties as prescribed under Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution.
• Furthermore, to qualify as a Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), one must be an eligible voter—which necessarily requires Indian citizenship.
• A non-citizen cannot hold such public office. Article 102 of the Constitution outlines disqualifications for Parliament, while Article 191 does the same for State Legislatures. Specifically, Article 102(1)(d) disqualifies individuals who are not Indian citizens, who have acquired foreign citizenship, or who owe allegiance to a foreign nation.
• Article 191 mirrors these provisions for State assemblies. Thus, suggesting that a non-citizen can vote or contest elections contradicts both logic and constitutional law.
• In instances where citizenship is questioned, the burden lies on the individual to prove that they are Indian citizens under the requirements of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
• While Section 7A of this Act allows for the registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), Section 7B(2) explicitly states that OCIs are not entitled to voting rights.
• In conclusion, both constitutional and statutory frameworks make it clear that only Indian citizens are eligible to be on electoral rolls, and any wrongful inclusion can be rectified by the ECI under Section 16(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Additionally, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj vs State of U.P. (1990) clarified that only lawful residence can be considered in determining eligibility.
• The Court observed that anyone staying in a country in violation of immigration laws cannot be treated as an ordinary resident for any legal entitlement, reinforcing the principle that legality of residence matters in both voting and other civil rights.

 Aadhar vs Citizenship

• Another important matter that needs clarification is whether holding an Aadhaar card qualifies someone as an Indian citizen. A close examination of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, especially Section 9, makes it evident that an Aadhaar number or its authentication does not establish or grant citizenship or proof of domicile to the cardholder.
• Further, Section 3 of the Act states that “every resident” is eligible to obtain an Aadhaar number by providing demographic and biometric details during enrolment. This means that Aadhaar is meant for residents, not necessarily citizens.
• Thus, simply possessing an Aadhaar card does not validate a person’s citizenship status. If non-citizens are included in the electoral rolls, in violation of constitutional norms, those entries would be considered invalid from the outset (void ab initio)

Download Pdf