Article 326 and Bihar Electoral Roll Revision

The Election Commission of India recently initiated a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of state elections. This move sparked controversy with opposition parties and activists alleging potential disenfranchisement of certain communities and new voters. The Commission justified the revision by citing its constitutional mandate under Article 326 of the Constitution of India. This article guarantees universal adult suffrage and forms the legal basis for such electoral roll updates.

What Is Article 326?

Article 326 guarantees every Indian citizen aged 18 or above the right to vote in Lok Sabha and state assembly elections. It establishes universal adult suffrage, ensuring no citizen is denied voting rights except on grounds defined by law. These grounds include non-residence, unsoundness of mind, criminal conviction, or corrupt electoral practices. The article mandates that eligible citizens must be registered as voters for elections to be valid and representative.

Election Commission’s Mandate Under Article 326

The Election Commission is constitutionally required to maintain accurate and updated electoral rolls. This includes removing duplicate, ineligible, or outdated entries and adding new eligible voters. The recent Special Intensive Revision in Bihar aims to reflect current demographic realities and ensure all eligible voters are correctly registered. The Commission argues this exercise is essential to uphold the integrity and fairness of elections.

Reasons Behind the Bihar Electoral Rolls Revision

The last comprehensive revision of Bihar’s electoral rolls was in 2003. Since then, population growth, migration, and other demographic changes have altered the voter base . The revision seeks to incorporate new voters who have turned 18, remove deceased or duplicate voters, and correct inaccuracies. This is intended to prevent electoral fraud and ensure a credible voting process.

Controversies and Opposition to the Revision

The revision has faced criticism from opposition parties and civil rights groups. Petitions filed in the Supreme Court argue that the identification process is burdensome. Citizens must provide documentary proof of citizenship and identity of both parents, excluding commonly accepted documents like Aadhaar and ration cards. Critics claim this could disenfranchise poor, migrant, and marginalised populations due to the short deadline and stringent requirements. They argue the process violates democratic principles and the fundamental right to vote.

Legal and Democratic Implications

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear petitions challenging the revision. The case raises important questions about balancing electoral integrity with inclusivity. Ensuring accurate voter rolls is vital, but so is protecting the voting rights of vulnerable groups. The outcome will influence future electoral roll management and voter identification norms across India.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *