Lalit Garg
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll initiated by the Election Commission in Bihar has sparked widespread debate and political scrutiny. On one hand, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav concluded their “Voter Rights Yatra” in Patna with a rally of opposition leaders on Monday; on the other, the Supreme Court issued a fresh order directing that the voter list revision process should continue. This directive is welcome, as it ensures that electoral reforms will not be abruptly halted. However, uncertainty persists about how the matter will unfold and its potential impact on the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. The Supreme Court clarified on Monday that voters in Bihar can file claims and objections even after September 1. This is a crucial step, as many political parties’ grievances remain unresolved. While most public complaints have been addressed, for some parties, flaws in the SIR process remain a significant electoral issue.
Opposition parties in the Indian National Developmental Inclusive (INDI) Alliance appear more focused on stirring controversies around this process, seeking political leverage. The Court rightly observed that much of the confusion surrounding the SIR is essentially a “matter of trust.” In other words, prevailing political mistrust must be addressed, and political parties themselves need to take proactive steps. Leaders should heed this advice and approach the process constructively rather than obstructively. Electoral reform is a collective responsibility. If all parties cooperate sincerely, the possibility of electoral malpractice can be significantly reduced. Revising and monitoring voter lists should be an ongoing effort by political organizations, as it strengthens democracy and enhances election integrity.
At the rally marking the conclusion of the Voter Rights Yatra, opposition leaders expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission’s process. Their skepticism about its validity remains evident. However, politicizing such constitutional procedures is unfortunate. Even more regrettable is the opposition’s attempt to raise allegations of voter suppression and cast suspicion on the Election Commission itself. Their statements suggest they will continue to highlight this issue, targeting both the Commission and the ruling government. Such persistent negativity is not only exaggerated but also undermines public confidence in constitutional institutions. The SIR process is both timely and sensitive. It aims to create a cleaner, more transparent electoral roll, yet Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav have challenged it through the Voter Rights Yatra, casting doubts on a constitutional body like the Election Commission. Such actions jeopardize the health and stability of democracy.
During Supreme Court hearings, opposition parties and the Election Commission exchanged sharp accusations. Lawyers representing opposition parties highlighted flaws in the process, while the Commission’s counsel argued that the real issue lies not in the procedure but in a mindset steeped in bias, prejudice, and obstinacy. According to him, the opposition has developed a tendency to find fault regardless of the facts. The Supreme Court is striving to handle this matter with fairness and prudence, but the challenge for the Election Commission remains: how effectively can it restore confidence among all parties and reassure every eligible voter? So far, the revision process has yielded mixed results. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, noted that instead of filing claims to include more voters, political parties have largely filed objections demanding the removal of names. Had the Commission deleted more names, there would likely have been more claims for inclusion. The Congress continues to complain that its agents’ claims have not been adequately considered. The Commission, however, insists that many claims were not submitted in the prescribed format.
In this context, the Election Commission should exercise flexibility and thoroughly verify its lists against ground realities. If major political parties mobilize their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) actively, voter rolls can be made error-free. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s intent. Prolonged disputes over voter lists are unfortunate, as they tarnish democracy’s dignity. Notably, the Court has instructed that District Legal Services Authorities and para-legal volunteers be deployed in the revision exercise. Clearly, the process must be completed promptly to avoid delays in Bihar’s elections.
The Election Commission is the backbone of Indian democracy. Its responsibility extends beyond conducting elections to ensuring their fairness, transparency, and credibility. Issues like faulty voter lists, duplicate names, deceased persons’ names, or fraudulent registrations have often raised questions about electoral integrity. From this perspective, the SIR process is an essential corrective measure. However, questions remain: Was there sufficient political consultation, public awareness, and transparency before launching such a large-scale exercise? If not, the dissatisfaction of political parties is understandable. Undoubtedly, this revision has heated Bihar’s political atmosphere. The assertive stance of the Jan Suraj Party also seems poised to influence the state’s political landscape significantly.
Bihar stands at a decisive juncture. The need for development-oriented politics is paramount. Encouragingly, both ruling and opposition parties appear to recognize this necessity anew. For the people, the most beneficial outcome would be if all political forces prioritize issues like development, employment, education, and healthcare over voter list disputes. The larger question is: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Election Commission, the opposition will struggle to justify its agitation. Conversely, if the Court identifies flaws in the process, the Commission’s functioning will face serious scrutiny. Describing the process as a direct assault on democratic rights, as some opposition leaders have, is an exaggeration. Purifying the voter roll is not an attack on democracy but an integral part of it. If every constitutional step is given a political spin and turned controversial, it will weaken rather than strengthen democratic institutions.
Initiatives like the SIR are needed not only in Bihar but across India to ensure an electoral process free from corruption and irregularities. However, their success depends on impartial, transparent implementation with broad consensus. The Election Commission must ensure not only the constitutional validity of its measures but also their public acceptability. The opposition, too, should refrain from reducing this process to a political weapon and instead seek constructive solutions through dialogue. Democracy thrives not only on voter participation but also on trust in institutions. Safeguarding the dignity and transparency of these institutions is essential. The continuation of the SIR process, as mandated by the Supreme Court, is a step in the right direction. It holds the promise of cleaner elections and a stronger democracy, provided all stakeholders contribute positively.
(Note:Lalit Garg is Writer, Journalist, Columnist from E-253, Saraswati Kunj Apartment, 25 I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-92 )
