Context: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission (EC) to consider Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards (EPIC), and ration cards as acceptable documents for the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The move is aimed at improving access and reducing wrongful exclusions.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Universal Adult Suffrage (UAS) in India; Right to Vote.
Universal Adult Suffrage (UAS) in India
- Article 326 of the Constitution grants every adult citizen the right to vote, regardless of gender, caste, religion, education, or property.
- 61st Constitutional Amendment 1989: Initial threshold of 21 years of age for being eligible to vote was lowered to 18 by the 61st CAA.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established democracy as part of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. For this ideal to function meaningfully, people should be able to freely decide the fate of their government (through voting), an unassailable right that shapes governance.
- Two Key laws operationalised this inclusive vision:
- Representation of the People Act 1950 which governs the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
- Representation of the People Act 1951 Act which regulates election conduct, candidature, and electoral offences.
- Under Article 324 the Election Commission (EC) serves as a constitutional guardian of elections, with powers of superintendence, direction, and control. EC’s key duty is to prepare accurate electoral rolls, guided by Section 19 of the RPA 1950, which mandates that any citizen aged 18 or above, ordinarily resident in a constituency and not disqualified, is entitled to be registered.
Winston Churchill once said, “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper…”
His words remain a timeless reminder that the health of any democracy ultimately rests on the sanctity of the ‘right to vote’.
Is Voting a Fundamental Right in India?
- Constituent Assembly view: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and K.T. Shah proposed including the right to vote as a fundamental right; the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee ultimately rejected the idea.
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006): The five-judge bench of the SC held that the ‘right to elect’ is a statutory right under Section 62 of the RPA 1951, and not a fundamental or constitutional right.
- Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016): The two-judge bench of SC described the ‘right to vote’ as a constitutional right, though not a fundamental right. However, the ruling of the larger-bench in the Kuldip Nayar judgment prevails.
- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): The SC declined to pronounce on the issue, noting that it had already been settled by the Kuldip Nayar judgment.
- In the minority view (dissent opinion), the Justice asserted that the ‘right to vote’ is an expression of Article 19(1)(a) and reflects the essence of Article 21.
- However, the ‘right to elect’ continues to be recognised as a statutory right.
Nevertheless, the courts have regarded the right to vote as an inseparable part of democracy, as it enables citizens to shape governance, making it a democratic imperative vital to the Indian republic’s survival.
John Dewey said, “Democracy is not just a form of government, but a social and personal ideal.”
Why does Electoral Roll Accuracy Matter?
- Under Section 21 of the RPA, 1950, the EC is empowered to prepare and revise electoral rolls to ensure their accuracy and integrity.
- Inaccuracies in Electoral Roll like mass omissions, ineligible inclusions, duplicates, or incorrect entries undermine the “one person, one vote” principle by enabling impersonation, disenfranchisement, or dilution of votes, which ultimately distorts the people’s mandate.
- The Bihar SIR controversy and broader electoral reform debates highlights the core democratic truth:
- India’s democracy depends on electoral rolls that are accurate, inclusive, and accessible.
- Purification of rolls is necessary because just as the exclusion of an eligible voter undermines democracy, so does the inclusion of an ineligible name.
Thus, EC must complete the exercise with a careful balance between genuine vigilance and inclusion to uphold the fairness of the process. The SC’s suggestion to include more accepted documents helps safeguard every genuine elector’s right to be represented.
