“The fault lines in India’s electoral architecture are visible” by Shubhrastha
Context
As the Election Commission of India (ECI) begins the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar (August 2025), widespread allegations of disenfranchisement — especially among migrants, minorities, and the poor — have reignited critical debates about the structure, inclusiveness, and responsiveness of India’s electoral framework.
Core Argument
India’s electoral architecture is based on outdated, post-colonial assumptions that fail to account for the realities of a mobile and economically vulnerable population. While citizenship grants the right to vote, the current system’s residency-based eligibility rules create structural barriers, leading to mass disenfranchisement, particularly among internal migrants.
Key Issues Raised
1. Structural Disenfranchisement via ‘Residency’
-
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 assumes a sedentary citizenry — where people vote in the constituency where they reside.
-
This assumption is outdated in a country where over 37% of the population are internal migrants.
-
In Bihar, over 1.2 million names have been deleted from voter rolls in 2025, primarily in high-migration districts like Gopalganj and Sitamarhi.
-
Migrants who are temporarily absent during verification are marked as non-residents, despite being Indian citizens.
2. Confusion Between Citizenship and Residency
-
Citizenship is a constitutional right and identity.
-
Residency, however, determines voting eligibility within a constituency.
-
Migrants live in a legal limbo: they are citizens but lack the mechanism to vote where they work or stay.
3. Institutional Limitations and Minimalism of the ECI
-
The ECI follows a strict, procedure-driven model — prioritizing roll “cleanliness” over substantive inclusion.
-
Despite recognizing the issues, the ECI has not pushed for reforms or alternative registration mechanisms.
-
This administrative minimalism reduces the ECI to a passive implementer.
4. Political Complicity
-
Political parties often exploit voter exclusion as a tool for narrative-building, rather than solving the issue.
-
Voter education is abysmal:
-
60% of voters in Bihar were unaware of the correction process.
-
Among migrants, this figure drops below 25%.
-
-
There’s a lack of outreach and support for affected populations during electoral roll revisions.
5. Lessons from International Best Practices
Other democracies show that inclusiveness and integrity can go hand-in-hand:
-
United States: Uses absentee and mail-in ballots to allow non-residents to vote in their home constituencies.
-
Philippines: Enables overseas absentee voting for migrant workers.
-
Australia: Deploys mobile polling stations in remote areas, ensuring 90%+ voter turnout.
These examples underline the need for political will and institutional innovation.
Recommendations
Legal and Policy Reforms
-
Amend electoral laws to reflect circular and seasonal migration patterns.
-
Introduce absentee voting or remote voting mechanisms for internal migrants.
Administrative Innovation
-
Pilot new models for voter registration in high-mobility regions.
-
Simplify claims-and-objections procedures.
-
Launch targeted communication campaigns for migrant-heavy populations.
Empowering the Election Commission
-
The ECI must move beyond technical compliance and play a proactive role in driving reform.
-
It should redefine roll integrity to emphasize inclusive accuracy, not mass deletions.
Conclusion
India’s electoral system is facing a systemic crisis of exclusion, especially for migrants and the economically weak. The Bihar experience is not an outlier but a symptom of a deeper structural fault in India’s electoral design. Upholding the spirit of universal adult franchise requires:
-
Flexible residency norms
-
Innovative voting models
-
Stronger institutions and civic education
Without urgent reform, the ideal of inclusive democracy risks becoming procedural tokenism.
