EC’s special intensive review is a corrective to contaminated electoral rolls

The Election Commission has a three-month window to publish Bihar's final voter list by September 30. (Source: PTI)

The special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised many questions. A petition questioning the move is being heard by the Supreme Court. Leaving aside conspiracy theories, most of the criticism centres around the short timeline. The election is due in November, and the notification for review was issued on June 24. This means the Election Commission has a three-month window to publish the final list by September 30.

The task, however, may not be as difficult as it seems. Of the nearly 7.9 crore voters, a little less than five crore were enrolled in the last intensive review conducted in 2003. They are excluded from the 2025 review. Their children, who were included during summary revisions in the interim, will also not be questioned. The rest must prove their identity and residency.

The process has been progressing well. According to an official release, nearly one lakh block-level officers and four lakh volunteers have begun door-to-door enumeration. As of the evening of July 7, preliminary enumeration of 36% of the electorate was completed. The Election Commission (EC) has also given voters extra time to submit proof if needed. The draft list will be published on August 1, leaving sufficient time for inclusions and deletions.

The EC is the backbone of India’s mature and successful electoral democracy. It is both highly empowered and efficient. Conducting five to six state elections annually—and nationwide polls every five years—without any proven allegation of bias, in a politically charged country of 140 crore people, is no small feat.

Why did the EC delay the review?

One key question remains unanswered: Why did the EC delay intensive door-to-door enumeration for 23 years? Senior bureaucrats in at least three states revealed that until the 1990s, once-in-three-year intensive reviews were the norm. This, along with the decadal census reports, formed the baseline for ‘summary revisions’—regular additions and deletions to the rolls based on specific applications—in the intervening years.

This practice was abandoned for over two decades. Political intervention seems unlikely, as this period spanned three different prime ministers from two rival camps. During these 23 years, India’s GDP grew nearly 6.5 times. Internal migration increased manifold. Social spending rose exponentially. Competitive politics became more intense.

What began with the minimum job guarantee scheme in 2005 has now evolved into full-fledged freebie politics, where governments hand out cash to garner votes. It also created common interest among people to enrol as voters in multiple locations.

A large section of the population from poor and populous states—such as West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand—migrate to the National Capital Region and other developed areas in the South and West for better wages. Many of these migrants vote in both their origin and destination states. The staggered election schedule across states facilitates this.

Multiple voting is also possible during phase-wise General Elections. While an inflated social security bill or misuse of freebies is one consequence, the bigger issue is the manufacturing of mandates.

The root cause lies in the EC’s failure to launch a unique number-based electoral roll in the last three decades. Perhaps they were waiting for the rollout of the National Identity Card, which has been under discussion for nearly 40 years. The EC has just started the process of assigning unique voter numbers by seeding the rolls with Aadhaar. This may put a check on duplication of votes.

Illegal immigrants

However, seeding alone won’t solve all the problems. Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, which is the primary eligibility criterion for voting. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that Aadhaar is being misused by illegal immigrants—mostly Bangladeshis—to become voters. Earlier, ration cards were used to ‘legalise’ their stay in India. Both documents are excluded from the EC’s list of identity proofs in Bihar.

Much has already been written about availability of fake Aadhaar cards. That illegal immigrants have entered the voter rolls is evident from the recent deportation drives after Operation Sindoor. Interestingly, many of these voters are not even permanent residents of India. Every election in West Bengal sees a rush of people entering from Bangladesh through formal and informal channels. Most of them carry Indian documents.

Political vested interests in border states like West Bengal maintain a well-oiled machinery. Panchayats issue the necessary documents to facilitate Aadhaar registration and voter enrolment. The entire package is available for as little as ₹5,000. Those planning to settle buy land; others merge with the internal migrant workforce.

They earn high wages in Delhi or Gujarat but return to Bengal, Assam, Bihar, or Jharkhand during elections as a political obligation. Bihar and Jharkhand are separated from Bangladesh through a narrow strip of land at Dhuliyan in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district. Illegal immigration has long been an issue in Pakur in Jharkhand and the Kishanganj belt in Bihar.

Electoral roll vs population trends

In all probability, EC will go for intensive review across the country and most certainly in West Bengal, which is scheduled to go on polls next year. Combined with Aadhaar seeding, this could restore credibility to the electoral rolls. Until then, questions will remain about the accuracy of the current lists.

According to the Sample Registration System 2021 report, West Bengal recorded the country’s lowest Total Fertility Rate (TFR) at 1.4—lower than China (1.55) and Russia (1.52). In the National Family Health Survey 2019–20 (NFHS-5), West Bengal reported a TFR of 1.39 in urban areas and 1.73 in rural areas.

In June, Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, remarked that urban TFR in Bengal had fallen dangerously to 1.2—lower than Europe. Ideally, Kolkata’s TFR should be even lower, comparable to Taiwan’s 1.1. Between 2001 and 2011, Kolkata's population shrank by 1.88%.

But, the voter list tells a different story. Between 2011 and 2021, the number of electorates in two Kolkata constituencies—Bidhannagar (a satellite township) and Chowringhee (the central business district)—increased by 21.5% and 2.5%, respectively.

For the record: Chowringhee is home to the city’s ageing elite. Bidhannagar increasingly resembles an old-age home. The state reported a 13.93% decadal population growth in 2011.