'EC timeline for a special intensive revision requires a review': Ashok Lavasa, Former Election Commissioner

Ashoka Lavasa

Several questions have been raised around the timing of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls announced by the Election Commission, ahead of the Bihar elections in November 2025. Former Election Commissioner, Ashok Lavasa explains that while such revisions have happened in the past, the last revision was done in 2003 but the method followed was different. The sudden announcement by the EC creates a distinction between those who were registered before 2003 and after. EC needs to carry out a massive information campaign to get people to understand what the EC is trying to do.

Thank you very much, Shweta. I think the question about timing has already been flagged by the Supreme Court of India, where many people have agitated this issue. Now, the context of this is that as per the Representation of the People Act and as per the Registration of Electors Rules, there is a revision that takes place every year, particularly in states which are facing an election like Bihar is in 2025. So what we know is that in January of 2025, Election Commission had published a roll, which was the updated roll. As per practice, after the publication of this roll and till the announcement of the elections, those who have been left out are given an opportunity to get themselves enrolled.

Equally, those who want their vote to be shifted out, they can also approach the respective ERO as per a laid down procedure. So this practice of ongoing updation of roll revision is part of the established procedure. And it is on account of this that the sudden announcement made by the Election Commission of a special intensive revision that has caused anxiety.

And let me tell you that what this amounts to is two things. A, it creates a distinction between those who were registered before 2003. And by the way, that was the last special intensive revision of the electoral rolls and those who have been registered as electors after that.

So one, there is a distinction between the two. And secondly, that even those who are registered after 2003, they have been divided into three categories depending on the date of their birth. Now, these are new procedures that have been evolved by the Election Commission of India. And clearly, people think that there is not enough time for the people to comprehend the purpose of this and understand the procedure which they have to follow in order to protect their voting rights.

Last intensive revision happened in 2003. How was that done, Mr. Lavasa? Because this time around, what the EC has also come out and said is that Aadhaar cards will not be considered as valid proof of ID. Now, when Aadhaar was rolled out, what we were told was that Aadhaar is a valid proof of identification.

Well, first of all, Aadhaar didn't exist in 2003. So that is a historic fact. But the point is that I think the Election Commission would do well to share with everyone the procedure that was followed in the special intensive revision of 2003. From what I understand, generally in a special intensive revision, the field officers, that is a BLO, is required to go from house to house and meet the head of the family in that house, find out who are the ordinary residents in that house, and based on his physical survey, carry out an intensive sort of field survey.

And then a draft was published. After the publication of the draft rolls, as per rules, people are given an opportunity to file their claims and objections. And it is after the period of claims and objections and the decision taken by the competent authority, who in this case is the electoral registration officer, that the rolls are published.

So that is pretty much the procedure which has been laid down. And as I said, that this time the difference is that there are two categories of electors, those registered in 2003, those registered after 2003. And in its order, the commission has said that those registered before 2003, they have a presumption of citizenship attached to them. Now, this is something which has baffled people because this was not done earlier.

Interesting. So, those that were enrolled pre-2003, they have a presumption of citizenship attached to them. But post-2003, the onus is now on the electors to come out and prove their citizenship. And that is also, that is, of course, putting the onus on them, which the concern is that a lot of electors could be left out of the process. And how valid of a concern is that, Mr. Lavasa?

Well, to the extent that all those who have been enrolled after 2003, they are being asked to resubmit the documents which they may have earlier submitted and based on which their names were included in the electoral rolls. This is acknowledged by the commission in its order of 24 June, by which they ordered the SIR. So, the order does say that people who are enrolled earlier, as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Representation of People Act, they need to resubmit their documents. Now, if somebody is unable to furnish those documents, then what would be the consequence? The possible consequence could be that his name is left out of the electoral roll.

Now, here is a gray area, because it is being discussed that initially the impression was that you had to submit all the documents by the 25th of July when the enumeration form was to be submitted. Now, of course, it is being said, and this is attributed to an advertisement issued by the CEO of Bihar, that people can submit their enumeration form without submitting the required documents. Now, it is a matter of opinion or somebody needs to clarify whether after 25th of July, those who have submitted the enumeration forms by the prescribed date, will they be asked to submit the documents later? Most likely, they will have to submit them in order to retain their name in the draft electoral roll, because of two reasons.

A, in the absence of the documents, which the Election Commission has prescribed, on what basis, first, the BLO will recommend their inclusion in the draft roll? Let us for a moment presume that all those who have submitted their enumeration form, their names get included in the draft roll. After 25th of July or after 1st of August, which is the date on which the draft roll will be published, you will have two categories of people, electors in the roll. A, those who have submitted valid documents, and those who have not submitted valid documents.

Now, I am unable to understand on what basis the ERO will make up its mind, whether to include everybody or not to include everybody. Because the test which Election Commission has indirectly prescribed is a test of citizenship. By attaching evidentiary value to those who existed in 2003, ERO has attached evidentiary value of their citizenship, if they existed in 2003 rolls.

It could be inferred that those who have enrolled later, they will be treated as citizens and their voting rights will be protected if they submit satisfactory prescribed evidence. So I think that has led to a lot of anxiety, a lot of concern among people. And that is why these issues have been agitated in the court.

Now, we should also Shweta not forget the fact that these people who are about three crores or more, that also is mutable, that number. The point is, after 2003, there have been five elections, and there have been five state assembly elections in Bihar. And many of them could have voted, I don't know the exact number out of this, but many of them would have voted. Now, they feel that if we are not able to produce these documents, will we have the right to vote? So I think that is a big question hanging over everybody's head.

Right. Also, what the EC has done is it's raised a big question mark on the validity of Aadhaar. Because like I said earlier, when Aadhaar was being introduced, it was considered as a valid form of identity, you can use an Aadhaar to open a bank account and so on. But right now, with EC specifically saying that Aadhaar will not be considered as a valid form of identification, Mr. Lavasa, there are two things that emerge from this. One is that is the Election Commission overstepping its powers? That's one. And second, what does this mean for Aadhaar as an identity card?

Well, I think this is one of the issues that came up before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has requested the Election Commission to consider, including Aadhaar, EPIC and the ration card. And in case the ECI differs, or decides not to consider them, then they have been asked to explain or give reasons in writing. So I think that is an open question. But that having said, I think we must realize that probably Aadhaar or any other form of identification could have been one of the documents based on which they initially got enrolled in the electoral roll.

Now, it is a fact that Aadhaar is not a proof of citizenship. The Aadhaar Act itself does not say that it is a proof of citizenship. It is a proof of identity. And that is why Aadhaar probably is the only document in our country, which gives a unique identity to every individual. Now, yes, it is a fact that it is not a proof of citizenship. But the point that in our country, so far, there is no single document issued by the government under the Citizenship Act, which a citizen can produce as a valid proof of citizenship. There are many things which are assumed.

For example, let's say the passport. The passport can be given only to an Indian citizen. And therefore, it is a valid document by which you can claim to be a citizen of India. Other than that, by inference, because Article 326 says that voting rights will be only available to Indian citizens who are above the age of 18 and who are otherwise not disqualified. Therefore, if somebody has a valid document given by the Election Commission of India, meeting him as an elector, he can very well say that here is a document which shows that I am a citizen of India, and that is why my right is recognized. But clearly, that is not under the Citizenship Act. It is only by inference.

So I think the dilemma before the Election Commission is that so far, for the last 74 years, it has been treating many other documents as valid proof of identity. And it has been taking documentary evidence and subjecting the citizens to a verification of their ordinary residence to establish that yes, you are a resident of this place. And by virtue of your ordinarily residing in this area, you are entitled to be enrolled as a vote, as an elect. So that is the time procedure followed so far, which is being debated in this case.

Watch full interview: "More Time is Needed for Rolling Out Special Intensive Revision of Voter Lists" Ashok Lavasa

So Mr. Lavasa, was this necessary to do? That's one. Secondly, will we be able to complete this process in time for Bihar elections?

Well, I don't want to judge what will be the outcome, because the Election Commission has a track record of doing very, very gargantuan exercises, Herculean exercises in a short span of time. So I don't want to prejudge the outcome of this exercise. But the point is that, since the objective of this, as claimed by the Election Commission is purification of electoral rolls, I think nobody can do that.

And nobody can argue that a non citizen should be allowed to creep into the electoral rolls. So I think as far as including everybody in all eligible persons in the electoral roll, excluding the ineligible people on the electoral roll, I think these are very laudable objectives. In fact, it's a mandate of the Election Commission of India. But the point I think is that whether it was necessary to do this exercise in such a short span of time. If this exercise would have been undertaken, as it is now being said that this will be done in the entire country.

So let there be open consultation, let the procedure to be followed be announced publicly. Let people understand, let the Election Commission carry out an education campaign to disseminate the procedure to the people. And then do it in ample time so that people are prepared for this exercise and they are able to respond to the requirements of the Election Commission.

So Mr. Lavasa, what's your sense? The EC is supposed to get back with a response on July 21, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a possibility that there could be a rethink on this? The Supreme Court, of course, has clearly come out and said that they've not stopped the process, but they've asked the EC to consider the arguments that have been presented. So what is your sense, Mr. Lavasa, on this?

Shweta, all that I am hoping for is that there are wise people sitting in the Commission. They should understand and they will understand the pragmatic, the practical issues involved. And if this desirable exercise is being done at the risk of some people, some eligible people being left out, then I think the timelines require a review.

Shweta Punj: Because casting your vote is a fundamental right.

 I just want to say one more thing that I don't think it's a question of a rich person or a poor person losing his right to vote, because the vote of every individual is the same, the value of the vote is the same. So we have to be equally respectful, equally concerned about every individual's vote. I think no eligible person, and by the way, that is the motto of the Election Commission, no voter to be left behind. So I suppose that a very inclusive, empathetic approach is required in this situation.