
No reason for such exercise: ADR to SC on Bihar electoral rolls revision
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in Indian democracy, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to conduct a “special intensive revision of electoral rolls” in Bihar. The EC’s move has been termed “unconstitutional” by ADR, which has questioned the necessity of such a drastic exercise.
According to EC’s June 24 order, the electoral roll in Bihar will be prepared afresh, with the 2003 roll serving as the basis. This decision has raised eyebrows among election watchdogs, who have expressed concerns over the potential flaws and irregularities that could arise from such a revision. ADR, in its petition to the Supreme Court, has argued that there is no valid reason for such a revision, and that it would lead to unnecessary duplication and confusion in the electoral process.
The EC’s decision to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar is based on the notion that the existing rolls are outdated and may not reflect the current demographics of the state. However, ADR has countered this argument by stating that the existing rolls are not necessarily outdated, and that the revision process is unnecessary. The NGO has pointed out that the EC’s own data shows that the electoral rolls in Bihar have been revised only recently, in 2019.
ADR has also expressed concerns over the potential misuse of the revision process, which could lead to fraud and corruption. The NGO has argued that the revision process would be vulnerable to manipulation, as it would involve the collection of new data and the updating of existing records. This could lead to errors, omissions, and even deliberate attempts to alter the electoral rolls to favor certain candidates or parties.
Furthermore, ADR has pointed out that the EC’s decision to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar is discriminatory and arbitrary. The NGO has argued that the EC has not provided any justification for why the electoral rolls in Bihar need to be revised, while the rolls in other states are not being revised. This has led to allegations of bias and favouritism, and has raised questions over the EC’s impartiality and fairness.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, ADR has sought to quash the EC’s order and has asked the court to direct the EC to maintain the existing electoral rolls in Bihar. The NGO has also sought an interim stay on the EC’s order, pending the outcome of the petition.
The EC, on the other hand, has defended its decision to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar, saying that it is necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the electoral rolls. The EC has argued that the revision process will help to eliminate duplicate entries, correct errors, and update the rolls to reflect changes in population demographics.
However, ADR’s concerns over the revision process are not unfounded. In the past, the EC’s revision of electoral rolls has been marred by controversy and allegations of irregularities. In 2019, for example, the EC’s revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal was criticized for being flawed and biased, leading to allegations of political manipulation and favouritism.
In conclusion, ADR’s petition to the Supreme Court challenging the EC’s decision to conduct a “special intensive revision of electoral rolls” in Bihar is a welcome move. The revision process, as currently proposed, is likely to be flawed, and may lead to unnecessary duplication and confusion in the electoral process. The EC’s decision to revise the electoral rolls in Bihar without providing any valid reason for doing so is also arbitrary and discriminatory. It is essential that the Supreme Court upholds the rule of law and protects the democratic rights of citizens by quashing the EC’s order and directing the EC to maintain the existing electoral rolls in Bihar.
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/adr-sc-bihar-electoral-rolls-revision-10108129/lite/