Guiding principle to defend, not deny the right to vote
Are alternative mechanisms, such as witness testimony or affidavits, in place if a citizen can't provide documents or meet the deadline? In an abrupt, short exercise foisted on them, rigid systems and procedural obstacles cannot arbitrarily deny the right to vote. The State must play a facilitative role to enable the right. The default presumption must be of inclusion. In the long term, we must debate making the right to vote a fundamental right so that electors can seek direct judicial redressal, and disenfranchisement necessarily passes the test of reasonableness and proportionality, ensuring that it is never arbitrary or excessive. Democracy celebrates elections, more so, their participatory nature.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
Even the first citizen is answerable under the RTI Act!
A Telugu phrase says: 'Darina poye daanayya' (anybody who walks in the street). According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' is an idiom that refers to ordinary people, anyone, or everybody. It's often used to indicate that something is not exclusive and is available to or intended for the general public. The question is: whether a citizen can ask for information from the President of India under the Right to Information Act? Who is a citizen? Should one prove his or her citizenship and if so how? Even a passport is not proof of citizenship, according to the Union Home Minister. This writer also does not have proof of citizenship. Under the Right to Information, a PIO (Public Information Officer), who is supposed to provide information, cannot demand proof of citizenship. Can the PIO prove whether he has citizenship? If a PIO asks for citizenship proof, it means he has denied an individual of RTI. Under the RTI Act, he is liable to pay a Rs 25000 penalty. In this case the question was sent to the President; it is the story of the RTI question. How the RTI gave the 'details' of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, former President, is very interesting, as explained by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. One Subhash Chandra Agrawal had on August 9, 2010, filed a petition under RTI. Shailesh explained: The institutions of democracy had not become robust enough to withstand an assault, and it is imperative for citizens to know the reasons why and how democracy in India was nearly lost. He allowed an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and under-secretary at the President's Secretariat to provide the complete information on the declaration of internal emergency by the then president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Gandhi said, 'The Commission cannot pass any direction in this regard, as it does not come within the Commission's powers as mandated under the RTI Act. Now that various functionaries like ministers, judges, and Information Commissioners have voluntarily put up details of their assets on websites, it is for the President to take a decision on this matter. The PIO's reply was therefore correct.' The PIO also stated that the issue of whether exchanges between the President of India and the Prime Minister can be revealed under the RTI Act was the subject matter of a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision in the SR Bommai & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 1918), discussed the meaning and scope of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, as regards Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: '… Then comes Clause (2) of Article 74 which says that the question 'whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court.' The idea behind Clause (2) is this: the Court is not to enquire—it is not concerned with—whether any advice was tendered by any Minister or Council of Ministers to the President, and if so, what was that advice. That is a matter between the President and his Council of Ministers. What advice was tendered, whether it was required to be reconsidered, what advice was tendered after reconsideration, if any, what was the opinion of the President, whether the advice was changed pursuant to further discussion, if any, and how the ultimate decision was arrived at, are all matters between the President and his Council of Ministers. They are beyond the ken of the Court. The Court is not to go into it. It is enough that there is an order/act of the President in appropriate form. It will take it as the order/act of the President. It is concerned only with the validity of the order and legality of the proceeding or action taken by the President in exercise of his functions and not with what happened in the inner Councils of the President and his Ministers. No one can challenge such decision or action on the ground that it is not in accordance with the advice tendered by the Ministers or that it is based on no advice. If, in a given case, the President acts without, or contrary to, the advice tendered to him, it may be a case warranting his impeachment, but so far as the Court is concerned, it is the act of the President…' (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court ruled that this obligation could not be evaded by seeking refuge under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, clearly laid down in SR Bommai that Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India merely barred an enquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the council of ministers to the president. It did not bar the court from calling upon the council of ministers to disclose to the court the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered did not become a part of the advice. Even if the material was looked into by, or shown, to the president, it did not take the character of advice. 'Given that the advice tendered by the council of ministers to the president enjoys the Constitutional protection of Article 74(2) and cannot be disclosed to the courts, a citizen under the RTI Act cannot seek information pertaining to such advice. However, the Supreme Court has held that the materials on the basis of which such advice is tendered by the council of ministers or on the basis of which the president forms the requisite satisfaction is not covered by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 74(2) does not cover such material, it can be accessed under the RTI Act, subject only to the exemptions under the RTI Act.' He wrote in the Second Appeal 'complete and detailed information on all documents/ records/ deliberations/ correspondence/ file notings on declaration of internal emergency in the country by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the then president is not barred from disclosure under Article 74 of the Constitution of India; only the advice received by the then president from the then prime minister is protected from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India (in line with the ruling in SR Bommai) and therefore cannot be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act.' It was based on and the report of Moneylife on the website. 18 June 2013. Being a former President, he committed a serious blunder. How can such a Constitutional wrong be repaired by a Right to Information petition? The people of India need to answer! (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
What Is The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision In Bihar & Why Has It Created A Stir?
The Special Intensive Revision, launched on June 24, seeks to include the names of eligible citizens in the voter list while removing those who are ineligible The Election Commission's decision to initiate a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral roll in the run-up to the assembly elections later this year has triggered major political controversy. While the commission maintains that the revision is intended to enhance transparency and remove ineligible entries from the voter list, opposition parties have raised concerns, claiming that the move may lead to the exclusion of legitimate voters. This also prompted a response from the ruling BJP, which accused the Congress of attempting to protect fraudulent entries in the rolls. But what exactly is SIR, and why has it polarised parties? News18 takes a look UNDERSTANDING SIR There are four types of electoral roll revisions: intensive, summary, partly intensive and partly summary, and special. In an intensive revision, a thorough household verification is carried out. A summary revision involves updating the electoral roll based on claims and objections regarding additions or deletions, but without any door-to-door verification. In a partly intensive and partly summary revision, the existing rolls are published as a draft, while booth-level officers simultaneously conduct household verification. A special revision is implemented as an urgent corrective measure to rectify the electoral rolls. The Special Intensive Revision, launched on June 24, seeks to include the names of eligible citizens in the voter list while removing those who are ineligible. The last time such a revision was conducted in Bihar was in 2003. According to the Election Commission, several factors such as rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, the addition of young citizens reaching voting age, unreported deaths, and the presence of names of foreign illegal immigrants have made the revision essential. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar told News18 on Monday that not a single political party is satisfied with the current status of electoral rolls for different reasons. 'During the past four months, all 4,123 EROs (electoral registration officer), 775 DEOs (district election officer), and 36 CEOs (chief electoral officer) have held nearly 5,000 meetings with 28,000 political party representatives. The ECI (Election Commission of India) has also invited all recognised political parties for interaction. No one was satisfied with the current status of electoral rolls for one reason or the other," Kumar said. HOW WILL IT BE HELD? For the drive, the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will conduct door-to-door surveys for verification during the process. 'The objective of an intensified revision is to ensure that the names of all eligible citizens are included in the Electoral Roll so as to enable them to exercise their franchise, and no ineligible voter is included in the electoral rolls and also to introduce complete transparency in the process of addition or deletion of electors in the electoral rolls," an official statement reads. In case of any claims and objections raised by any political party or an elector, the poll body official will inquire into the same before satisfaction is arrived at. If there are further issues, an appeal against the order can also be made to the District Magistrate and the Chief Electoral Officer. The poll body has directed that economically weaker and other vulnerable groups, including the elderly, sick, and Persons with Disabilities (PwD), should not be harassed and are facilitated to the extent possible, including through deployment of volunteers to take care of genuine electors. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE? The Election Commission has stated that the Electoral Registration Officer will provide Enumeration Forms to the Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who will then distribute these forms to voters through home visits, offering guidance on how to complete them. Voters can also upload the forms and supporting documents online. After the forms are submitted and verified, a preliminary electoral roll will be made available on the ECI and CEO websites, and it will be shared with political parties. Both voters and political parties will have the opportunity to raise objections to the draft list. Once these objections are addressed, the final electoral roll will be published. The Election Commission is aiming to release the draft electoral roll for Bihar on August 1 and the final version by September 30, the poll body has announced. Nearly 87 per cent (6.86 crore) of Bihar's 7.90 crore voters have received enumeration forms during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR), the ECI said, noting that 1.5 crore households have already been covered in the first round of visits by booth-level officers (BLOs). According to the ECI, 1.55 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) are supporting the drive, with the BJP, RJD, and JD(U) contributing the highest numbers. News18 had reported earlier that of the total 7.89 crore voters in the state, around 4.96 crore—those who were already registered as of January 1, 2003—only need to fill out and submit the new enumeration form. However, the remaining 2.93 crore voters, which is about 37 per cent of the total, will also need to provide documents proving their Indian citizenship along with the form. The Election Commission had made submitting at least one of 11 documents a must for verification. These include birth certificates, passports, identity cards or pension payment orders issued to government employees or pensioners, permanent residence certificates, forest right certificates, caste certificates, family register prepared by state and local authorities, and land or house allotment certificates issued by the government. Aadhaar is not part of the list. However, in the face of criticism by opposition parties, the poll body has said voters can get verified in the electoral rolls despite not submitting the mandatory documents. 'If the documents are not given, the Electoral Registrar Officer will carry out verification based on investigation at the local level," EC said. A poster put up by EC says: 'If the necessary documents and photo are not available, then just fill the enumeration form and provide it to the Booth Level Officer. If you are unable to provide the necessary documents, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) can take a decision on the basis of local investigation or evidence of other documents." WHY IS THE OPPOSITION PROTESTING? The Congress has criticised the revision process, arguing that it could lead to the deliberate exclusion of voters through the misuse of state machinery. In a statement, the Congress' empowered action group of leaders and experts (EAGLE) described the Election Commission's revision of electoral rolls as a solution more harmful than the problem itself. 'The INC opposes the devious Special Intensive Revision exercise ordered by the ECI for Bihar," the statement said, adding that the revision showed was EC's admission that all is not well with India's electoral rolls—a charge frequently levelled by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee too has criticised the exercise, alleging that the Election Commission is targeting Bengal's youth under the guise of a new voter list verification process. 'This is very concerning. They have introduced a declaration form for getting your name on the voter list. For those born between July 1, 1987 and December 2, 2004, a new declaration form must be submitted along with the parents' birth certificates to enrol their names in the voters' list. The ECI says that parents' birth certificates must be submitted. What is going on in the name of full enumeration? This is a document and declaration form from the ECI. There are many irregularities," Banerjee said. Leader of Opposition and former Deputy CM of Bihar, Tejashwi Yadav, said: 'The EC's move is to disenfranchise the poor and marginalised sections of voters who have only Aadhaar as their valid document, which the EC says is not acceptable." The Opposition got a shot in the arm when Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has helped usher in several electoral reforms, moved the apex court against the EC's decision. A group of leaders from 11 parties of the INDIA bloc met with senior Election Commission officials to voice their opposition to SIR, condemning it as the 'greatest assault on the fundamental structure of the Constitution". top videos View all On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear on July 10 a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's move to conduct SIR in poll-bound Bihar. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Shadan Farasat jointly mentioned the matter before a partial working days bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, seeking urgent listing. About the Author Apoorva Misra Apoorva Misra is News Editor at with over nine years of experience. She is a graduate from Delhi University's Lady Shri Ram College and holds a PG Diploma from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : 2025 Bihar elections BJP congress election commission electoral roll news18 specials Location : Patna, India, India First Published: July 07, 2025, 12:01 IST News explainers What Is The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision In Bihar & Why Has It Created A Stir?
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Around 68 lakh Delhi voters to face citizenship test in electoral roll revision exercise
NEW DELHI: The upcoming Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral roll is transforming into a sweeping verification exercise that will compel millions of city residents to prove their citizenship and local residency to retain their right to vote. As per officials involved in the planning, the exercise will put nearly 68 lakh voters under the scanner, effectively testing their eligibility to remain on the electoral rolls. As reported by TNIE on Sunday, July 6, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has notified March 2008 as the cut-off date for the revision, aligning Delhi's process with a similar and controversial effort already underway in Bihar. Delhi had 1.06 crore registered voters in 2008, a number that has surged to 1.56 crore in the latest electoral roll published in January this year. Over the past 17 years, officials say around 18 lakh voters have either died or migrated. A roughly equal number has been added in successive revisions, bringing the net number of new or altered entries close to 68 lakh. The figure is over 40 per cent of the current electors. 'We omit at least a lakh names every year from the rolls due to death or migration. If we consider the difference in the voter count between 2008 and now, it conservatively adds up to 70 lakh individuals whose credentials need review," said a senior poll official.
