Crucially, the ECI has also adamantly defended its authority to verify citizenship during this revision. While not claiming to adjudicate citizenship like the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955, the ECI maintains its constitutional mandate under Article 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to ensure that only Indian citizens are registered as voters. 

This stance directly addresses concerns raised during the Supreme Court’s July 10 hearing, where the bench had indicated that EPICs, along with Aadhaar and ration cards, should be considered valid documents. The onus, according to the ECI, remains on the individual to provide proof of citizenship for inclusion.

52, 30,126 electors (6.62%) were not found at their addresses so far, 18.66 lakh deceased says ECI

The hastily announced SIR—given that the state assembly elections are just a few months away have raised vocal opposition and concerns over the motive behind the process: whether mass exclusion of legitimate voters from the marginalised sections was underway, through this backdoor and unlawful method. Now the Commissions provisional figures lend strength to these accusations! The Election Commission’s provisional figures released yesterday, July 22, 2025, detailing Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, have ignited a political firestorm, raising profound concerns about potential widespread disenfranchisement. The ECI reported receiving 7, 16, 04,102 enumeration forms, representing 90.67% of the total electors. 

However, the concerning revelation that “52, 30,126 electors (6.62%) were not found at their addresses so far” has become the central point of contention. This significant cohort comprises 18,66,869 reported deceased, 26,01,031 permanently shifted, and 7,50,742 enrolled at multiple places, alongside a smaller but concerning 11,484 untraceable individuals. Together, these account for about 6.62 per cent of the electorate. With the ECI’s motives under suspicion, its methodology faulty and opaque, and its attitude one of non-transparency laced with institutional arrogance, Bihar’s electorate is on edge.

The ECI’s press note dated 22.07.2025 can be read here

ECI’s rationale: preserving the integrity of revision

The ECI’s affidavit explicitly states, “The EPIC cards are prepared on the basis of electoral rolls. Since the electoral roll, itself, is being revised, the production of EPIC Cards will make the whole exercise futile. The conceptual and procedural integrity of a de-novo revision would stand undermined if EPICs, which are merely reflective of prior entries, are used to validate entries in a roll that is required to be constructed anew. The EPIC, being a by-product of an earlier electoral roll, cannot substitute the verification process mandated for fresh preparation and reliance solely on the EPIC for inclusion or automatic continuance would be contrary to both the scheme and purpose of a fresh revision exercise” as Live Law reported 

#BREAKING In the #Bihar SIR matter, Election Commission tells Supreme Court that the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot be accepted for inclusion in the voter rolls, as this process is a fresh revision.

Since Voter ID cards are issued based on existing electoral rolls,… pic.twitter.com/Uk4Y4GPKgm

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 21, 2025

Regarding Aadhaar, the ECI reiterated its long-standing position: it is not recognised as a standalone valid document for electoral roll inclusion as it primarily serves as proof of identity and does not establish citizenship. The Commission cited Section 9 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which explicitly clarifies that possessing an Aadhaar number does not confer citizenship. 

However, the ECI did clarify that Aadhaar can “supplement other documents to prove eligibility,” acknowledging its utility for identification purposes during the SIR process, as evident from the enumeration forms allowing voluntary submission of Aadhaar numbers.

The exclusion of ration cards from the list of acceptable documents for the Bihar SIR was justified by the ECI on the grounds of widespread prevalence of fraudulent cards. The Commission referenced a central government press release from March 7, 2025, which reported the removal of 5 Crore fake ration cards. According to Live Law, the affidavit noted, “That it is submitted that given the widespread existence of fake ration cards, it has not been prescribed within a list of 11 documents to be relied upon for screening eligibility under Article 326”  

Despite this, the ECI emphasised that the list of documents in the Enumeration Forms is indicative, not exhaustive. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs (AEROs) are obligated to consider all documents presented for proof of eligibility, including ration cards, with the final decision resting on the officer’s satisfaction as per Section 22 of the RP Act, 1950, and Rule 21(A) of the RER, 1960. The ECI clarified that these documents are primarily for “the limited purpose of establishing identity” during the SIR process.

ECI’s assertions on citizenship verification powers

A significant aspect of the ECI’s counter-affidavit is its determined defense of its authority to seek proof of citizenship during the SIR. This directly counters the petitioners’ argument that the ECI is overstepping its jurisdiction. The Commission asserted its statutory obligation to ensure only Indian citizens are registered as voters, deriving this power from Article 326 of the Constitution and Sections 16 and 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar’s affidavit stated, “ECI is vested with the power to scrutinize whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes, inter alia, an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326 of the COI. Such scrutiny is constitutionally mandated and crystallized by virtue of RP Act 1950. This power flows directly from the provisions of Article 324 read with 326 and Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act 1950” Live Law reported 

The ECI dismissed the contention that the power to adjudicate citizenship rests solely with the central government. While acknowledging Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Central Government in cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, the ECI argued that “Other aspects related to citizenship can be inquired into by other relevant authorities for their purposes, including those who are constitutionally obligated to do so, ie., the ECI.” The Commission highlighted that establishing citizenship is the individual’s responsibility, as the necessary documents are within their personal knowledge.

Crucially, the ECI clarified that it is not undertaking any independent exercise of determining or adjudicating upon the question of citizenship, but merely discharging its duty to prevent non-citizens from being included in the electoral roll. This, it argued, is distinct from the process under the Citizenship Act, 1955. 

The Commission also rejected the idea that requiring proof of citizenship reverses the burden of proof, stating that under the electoral registration scheme, an applicant must establish eligibility by submitting Form 6. For existing names, removal occurs only after a detailed inquiry and when the ERO is satisfied of the person’s ineligibility, without implying termination of citizenship.

The SC’s July 10 intervention 

These recent ECI submissions come in the wake of a mid-vacation hearing on July 10, 2025, where the Supreme Court, while declining to impose an interim stay on the Bihar SIR, made crucial observations. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, had unequivocally directed the ECI to “consider the following documents such as the Aadhaar card, the EPIC voter ID card issued by the Election Commission, and ration card.” 

The Court had also noted that the ECI’s existing list of 11 accepted documents was “not exhaustive.” This directive came amidst a batch of petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), challenging the SIR process as arbitrary, discriminatory, and a potential threat to the fundamental right to vote, particularly by effectively acting as a citizenship screening mechanism. 

Petitioners, represented by legal stalwarts like Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Kapil Sibal, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, had questioned the legality of the “Special Intensive Revision,” its unprecedented nature, the arbitrary distinctions made between voters (especially pre- and post-2003 registrants), and the immense burden of proof placed on individuals. Concerns were also raised about the short 30-day timeline and its proximity to the November 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, suggesting a political motive behind the exercise.

From about July 10, the Hindi daily, Dainik Bhaskar, as also independent journalist and You Tuber, Ajit Anjum have been flagging the issue of the problematic manner in which the SIR process is being carried out in Bihar.

Adding to the complexity and public scrutiny of the SIR process, senior journalist Ajit Anjum has faced legal repercussions for his investigative reporting. On July 13, 2025, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Anjum and his team in Balia, Begusarai, Bihar. The complaint, filed by a Booth Level Officer (BLO), alleged obstruction of government work and spreading communal animosity, citing sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. 

His video reports from the ground have meticulously detailed instances where ECI guidelines were allegedly circumvented, such as voters being denied acknowledgment receipts, BLOs receiving only single copies of forms, and incomplete forms being uploaded with only names and signatures, lacking photos or full details. Anjum’s persistent questioning of these procedural flaws, and his refusal to remove his videos despite alleged pressure from local authorities, has brought the ground-level challenges of the SIR into sharp focus. 

The road ahead: July 28 hearing and public scrutiny

The ECI’s detailed affidavit sets the stage for the next Supreme Court hearing on July 28, 2025. This hearing is expected to be crucial in determining the future direction of Bihar’s electoral roll revision. While the ECI asserts its constitutional and statutory mandate to conduct a thorough revision, including citizenship verification, and to set criteria for document acceptance, the Court’s previous observations indicate a strong emphasis on ensuring no eligible voter is disenfranchised. 

The challenge lies in balancing the ECI’s goal of “purity” in electoral rolls with the fundamental right to vote and avoiding processes that could disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. The ongoing legal battle, coupled with intense media and political scrutiny, underscores the significant implications of the Bihar SIR for democratic processes in India. The period from August 1 to September 1, 2025, earmarked for public objections to the Draft Electoral Rolls, will also be critical, as it provides a window for citizens to address any inaccuracies or exclusions.

Opposition parties staged protest outside the Parliament and Bihar Assembly

The release of these figures immediately galvanised opposition parties in Bihar. On July 22, 2025, dressed in black, opposition party legislators in the Bihar Assembly staged a protest for the second consecutive day against the ongoing SIR. The intensity of the protest escalated on July 23, 2025, leading to the adjournment of the Bihar Assembly until 2 p.m. after Chief Minister Nitish Kumar angrily intervened during a statement by Leader of the Opposition Tejashwi Yadav, plunging the House into turmoil.

#BREAKING In the #Bihar SIR matter, Election Commission tells Supreme Court that the Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) cannot be accepted for inclusion in the voter rolls, as this process is a fresh revision.

Since Voter ID cards are issued based on existing electoral rolls,… pic.twitter.com/Uk4Y4GPKgm

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 21, 2025

Former CM Rabri Devi and other RJD MLCs mirrored this protest outside the Bihar Assembly. 

VIDEO | Patna: Former CM Rabri Devi (@RabriDeviRJD) and other RJD MLCs stage protest outside the Bihar Assembly over the issue of SIR.#BiharAssembly #BiharNews #BiharPolitics

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/jv6RiKAbwy

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 23, 2025

Tejashwi Yadav, addressing the media, stated, “Today, we spoke on SIR in the Assembly…Who has been in power since 2005? Everyone knew what the discussion would be on, but the CM kept speaking on what he wanted. CM is not state to run the state now. The way state is being run from Delhi on remote control…” 

#WATCH | Patna | On Bihar SIR, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav says, “Today, we spoke on SIR in the Assembly…Who has been in power since 2005?..Everyone knew what the discussion would be on, but the CM kept speaking on what he wanted. CM is not state to run the state now. The way… pic.twitter.com/hcfnlvhnuE

— ANI (@ANI) July 23, 2025

He further criticised the ECI’s “hasty” SIR, questioning, “Where will poor people get so many documents from?” Yadav also revealed, “The Speaker scolded the Deputy CM. Deputy CM Vijay Sinha made an inappropriate statement. Why are they allowed to speak in between?… The opposition will raise questions.”

The concerns over Bihar’s SIR have resonated across the national political landscape. Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, commenting on the ECI flagging 52 lakh missing voters in Bihar, broadened the scope of the accusation: “It is not just about those 52 lakh people. They have done cheating in Maharashtra (Assembly elections). We asked the ECI to show the voter’s list, but they refused. We asked them to show videography, but they changed the rules of videography. 1 crore new voters were added in Maharashtra. In Karnataka, we have caught a huge theft. I will show it to the Election Commission in black and white on how theft is done. They have understood that we are aware of their game now… Now, what they are doing is that they have deleted the voters, and a new voter list will be brought…”

#WATCH | Delhi: On Election Commission flags 52 lakh missing voters in Bihar, Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, “It is not just about those 52 lakh people. They have done cheating in Maharashtra (Assembly elections). We asked the ECI to show the voter’s list, but… pic.twitter.com/a8sqIx35rW

— ANI (@ANI) July 23, 2025

The consolidated opposition front views the SIR exercise not merely as an administrative cleanup but as a deliberate attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes by targeting specific demographics for disenfranchisement

The sheer scale of these “untraced” electors, when combined with the ECI’s firm stance that Voter IDs are unacceptable for fresh enrollment and its assertive claim of citizenship verification powers, paints a troubling picture. This policy framework, particularly for a “de novo” revision, places an immense burden on genuine voters, especially migrant workers and those with limited access to extensive documentation. 

The larger narrative

The ECI’s position, particularly on Voter IDs and citizenship verification, stands in direct contrast to the Supreme Court’s observations during the July 10, 2025 hearing. In that earlier proceeding, the Court had urged the ECI to be more inclusive, specifically indicating that Aadhaar, EPICs, and ration cards should be considered valid identity documents for the SIR. The current ECI affidavit, filed in response to this, demonstrates a firm resolve to implement its own interpretation of the revision process. This creates a legal challenge that the July 28 hearing will likely address.

The concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly for marginalised communities, are not merely speculative. As highlighted by journalist Ajit Anjum’s recent reporting and subsequent FIR, the ground reality of the SIR has revealed significant procedural inconsistencies and challenges, like the denial of acknowledgement receipts and the burden on citizens to photocopy forms due to BLOs having limited supplies. 

These on-the-ground issues illustrate the practical difficulties electors face in complying with the ECI’s demands, amplifying the fear that the roughly 52.30 lakh “untraced” electors might face an uphill battle to prove their eligibility. The ECI’s defense of its citizenship verification powers, while legally framed, is seen by many as adding another layer of scrutiny that could disproportionately affect those whose citizenship documentation might be less straightforward or readily available. The ongoing legal battle and the ECI’s detailed data point to a significant democratic exercise with far-reaching implications for voter rights and the integrity of the electoral process in Bihar and, potentially, across the nation.

Related

Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision 

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was also informed by senior advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi, appearing for the Election Commission, that the submission of the Aadhaar number was not mandatory under Rule 26-B of the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022. The senior counsel had submitted that nearly 66,23,00,000 Aadhaar numbers had already been uploaded in the process of finalising electoral rolls. It was added that the submission of the Aadhaar number was not mandatory under Rule 26-B of the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022 and hence the Election Commission was looking into issuing appropriate clarificatory changes in the forms introduced for that purpose.

It is essential to note here that the said undertaking has been made by the Election Commission in a petition filed in the Supreme Court that highlighted issues with Form 6 (Application Form for new voters) and Form 6B (Letter of Information of Aadhaar number for the purpose of electoral roll authentication) of the ECI forms for registration in e-roll. The said petition had been filed by G.Niranjan, Senior Vice President, Telangana Pradesh Committee. Based on the undertaking made by the ECI, the Court disposed of the writ petition. Concerns had been raised about whether individuals who have not linked their Aadhaar with their Voter ID will face exclusion from electoral roll registration. It had been argued that that the right to vote is one of the “most sacred rights” and cannot be denied if a person does not have an Aadhaar card.

Prior to this, in December 2022, former Union Minister for Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju, had stated in the Rajya Sabha during a Parliamentary session that linking Aadhaar with Voter ID is voluntary and consent of the elector is required to be obtained to link the same.

Election authority mandates linking of Aadhaar with Voter IDs:

The Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022 was notified by the Central Government in June 2022 to provide for linking Aadhaar number with election ID cards. Form 6B is the application form by which a voter can inform the Aadhaar number for the purpose of electoral roll authentication.

In August 2022, the Election Commission of India had launched the program to collect Aadhaar number of electors ‘on a voluntary basis’. In accordance to the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Electoral Registration Officers were permitted to ask the elector to provide their Aadhaar numbers for the purpose of establishing identity. However, the same was supposed to be only voluntary.

Notably, a petition remains pending in the Supreme Court which challenges the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022.

Related:

One Nation, one election is a regression, a denial of democratisation of the marginalised

Election Commission of India says voters’ names not to be removed without prior notice

Were the 2019 general elections free & fair?

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

What do 6.5 lakh defective VVPATs say about India’s election process?

The post ECI undertaking to SC: Aadhaar number not mandatory to enrol as voter appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Aadhaar was envisaged as a nation-wide programme to provide every citizen with a unique identity document, concerns have repeatedly been raised about its possible misuse as a means of surveillance by way of linking it to multiple other documents.

Now that a House Panel is expected to meet on November 25 to discuss electoral reforms including linking Aadhaar to Voter IDs, let us take a deeper look into what this entails and possible repercussions.

Why is the House Panel meeting?

On November 25, Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, headed by Rajya Sabha member Sushil Kuamr Modi, is meeting to discuss a variety of electoral reforms. The chief among these are:

• Remote voting
• Linking Aadhaar to Voter ID
• Common electoral roll
• Action against elected representative who file false affidavits

The first two are key from the point of view of migrant workers, as they are registered as workers in their home states, but are unable to get adequate leave to travel to their home state in order to vote during elections.

Migrant Workers and Voting: Some facts and figures

A 2012 study showed that 78% of migrant labourers surveyed possessed voter ID cards and names present on voting lists of their home cities.

One survey shows that only 48% of those surveyed voted in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections when the national average was 59.7%. In the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, major sender states such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had among lowest voter turnout rates at 57.33% and 59.21% respectively (when the national average was 67.4%).

According to the 2011 census, the number of internal migrants stands at 45 crores, a 45% surge from the earlier census of 2001. Among these, 26% of the migration, i.e., 11.7 crores, occurs inter-district within the same state, while 12% of the migration, i.e., 5.4 crores, occurs inter-state.

Then there is the subject of circular migration where migrant workers move to find work during a specific period each year, but return to their home state after that.

Another element that needs a more nuanced discussion is how the lives of migrant workers are actually impacted more by decisions taken by various government authorities in the place where they live and work, instead of their home states. But they are unable to register as voters from these states as very often they do not have a proper address, something that also impedes them in other ways – such as leaving them out of the banking system. Clearly there is a web of interconnected problems.

In fact, SabrangIndia’s sister organisation, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had highlighted all of this in a memorandum to the Election Commission of India (ECI) as part of the Let Migrants Vote campaign.

Remote voting can certainly help migrant workers who would like to vote for elections being conducted in their home states. Postal voting is a mechanism that can be put to use for this purpose. This bypasses the need for inking Aadhaar to Voter IDs.

Another option is something rather basic, a measure that should have been implemented decades ago – maintain a database of migrant workers in every state on the district level if not the taluka level. This way a proper record of migrant workers can be maintained without the need to link Aadhaar to Voter ID.

These are clearly issues that need a deeper analysis and comprehensive debate before any decisions are taken on the subject. The deeply emotive subject of the right of migrant workers to vote, should not be manipulated to justify linking of Aadhaar with Voter ID.

Initial concerns about Aadhaar-Voter ID linking

Activists and data scientists had raised an alarm when it was revealed that as many as 55 lakh voters in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana had been left out of the electoral process due to linking of their Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) and Aadhaar by the EC in 2015. It was alleged that the mandatory door-to-door verification was not undertaken before all these people’s names were purged from the rolls!

The move was the result of a process started in March 2015 by the election commissioners of the two states to link the two identity documents as part of the National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP) in a bid to weed out duplicate and bogus voters. Now, while the objective is indeed laudable, the inadvertent deletion that allegedly took place without following set procedure deprived lakhs of voters of their right to vote. In fact, following this fiasco, the Supreme Court halted the process later that year.

SC judgment on Aadhaar

In September 2018, the Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar’s constitutional validity. The Aadhaar case that was heard for a record 38 days by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AK Sikri, Justice AM Khanwikar and Justice A Bhushan delivered the verdict months after reserving judgment in May. There were three separate judgments from Justice Sikri, Justice Bhushan and Justice Chandrachud. CJI and Justice Khanwilkar did not pronounce a separate judgment but concurred with Justice Sikri. Justice Bhushan’s judgment was also in line with that of Justice Sikri. But Justice Chandrachud wrote a dissenting judgment.

However, in a partial victory for privacy activists, controversial sections such as those dealing with the national security exception and private players demanding Aadhaar data, were struck down. Section 33(2) of the Aadhaar Act that dealt with the National Security exception was struck down. This section permitted disclosure of information, including identity and authentication information, made in the interest of national security. Justice Sikri has also read down Section 33 (1) that enables disclosure of Aadhaar information on order of a District Judge. Now the owner of the information should be given opportunity of hearing before issuing such orders.

Additionally, Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, that permitted private entities to use Aadhaar information to authenticate the identity of a person, was also held unconstitutional. Therefore, no private company can either demand Aadhaar information or make it mandatory for providing services. Aadhaar would not be required for opening a bank account or for getting a mobile phone connection.

Section 47 that allowed only the UIDAI to file criminal complaints in case of data breach has also been struck down. It has been held that exclusion of individuals from filing complaints was arbitrary.

Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting judgment

Justice DY Chandrachud wrote the lone dissenting judgment saying Aadhaar is liable to be declared as unconstitutional. “Violation of fundamental rights under the Aadhaar scheme fails on the touchstone of tests of proportionality,” he said. “Constitutional guarantees cannot be compromised by vicissitudes of technology,” he noted in a strongly worded dissenting judgment.

Justice Chandrachud also expressed his apprehensions about the misuse of data for profiling saying, “Biometrically enhanced identity information, combined with demographic data such as address, age and gender, among other data, when used in increasingly large, automated systems creates profound changes in societies, particularly in regard to data protection, privacy, and security. Biometrics are at the very heart of identification systems. There are numerous instances in history where the persecution of groups of civilians on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion was facilitated through the use of identification systems. There is hence an alarming need to ensure that the on-going development of identification systems be carefully monitored, while taking into account lessons learnt from history.”

It is this part that sends a shiver down the spine, given how Aadhaar data can possibly be used for voter profiling, targeting and even subsequent gerrymandering if Aadhaar is linked with Voter ID.

Renewed concerns about linking Aadhaar and Voter ID

Recently over 500 entities such as civil rights groups including Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Adivasi Women’s Network, Chetna Andolan, etc.; as well as groups working to defend digital freedoms and rights, such as Rethink Aadhaar, Article 21 Trust, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), and the Free Software Movement of India, as well as activists, journalist and educators including CJP secretary Teesta Setalvad signed a statement calling the move to link Aadhaar with Voter ID “ill-thought, ill logical and unnecessary”.

The statement says that the signatories “are deeply concerned that this will almost certainly lead to mass disenfranchisement, could increase voter fraud, given the mass discrepancies in the Aadhaar database, and could violate people’s right to privacy by enabling voter profiling through the linkage of data sets.” It further elaborates, “India currently has no data protection law, and the current personal data protection bill has wide exceptions for the government. Any attempts to link Aadhaar to the voter IDs, would lead to demographic information which has been linked to Aadhaar, being linked to the voter database. This creates the possibilities for disenfranchisement based on identity, of increased surveillance, and targeted advertisements and commercial exploitation of private sensitive data.”  

A key reason cited is the violation of privacy and secrecy of vote. If the revelations of the Cambridge Analytica scandal where Facebook data of millions of users was used to allegedly rig the US elections in favour of Donald Trump by micro-targeting voters with false news is anything to go by, imagine the ramifications if it was demographic data of millions of Indians sourced from the Aadhaar database…

Related:

Let Migrants Vote
Migrant Lives Matter: Open Letter to the Election Commission
CJP campaigns for migrant workers’ Right to Vote
SC upholds Aadhaar’s Constitutional Validity, but partially addresses Privacy Concerns
Understanding the Aadhaar Case

The post Aadhaar linking to Voter ID: Empowering voters or enabling surveillance? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sunil Karmakar, a resident of Ramnagar village of Murshidabad district of West Bengal, was in for a rude shock when he got his voter identification card. Karmakar had applied for some corrections to his card and when it was delivered to him, it had the picture of a dog instead of Karmakar!

He told India Today, “Yesterday I was called at Dulal Smriti School and this voter ID card was given to me. I saw the photo. The officer there signed and gave it to me but he didn’t see the photo. This is playing with my dignity. I will go to the BDO office and request that this should not happen again.”

Block Development Officer (BDO) Rajarshi Chakraborty said that the correct card will be issued to Karmakar soon. He said, “If there is a mistake, it’ll be corrected. As far as the dog’s photo is concerned, it might have been done by someone while filling online application. The photo has already been corrected. He’ll get the final ID card with the correct photo.”

This not the first time a government recognized identity document had been issued with the picture of an animal. In July 2015, a Madhya Pradesh man had managed to get an Aadhaar card for his dog Tommy Singh, son of Sheru Singh!

The post Bengal man issued voter ID with dog’s picture! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

And still there were some whose names were in the electoral rolls and also had voter ID cards but could not vote because when they went to the polling booth they did find their names in the list but against it was written the word ‘deleted’.

Dr. Lubna Sarwath, former MP contestant in 2014 had also found her name deleted in the voting list and in 2018 she contested again for the assembly seat after re-applying for her voter’s Id from Socialist Party (India).  Her name was found in the electoral list in Bhopal.

She has been on a warpath ever since seeking an explanation from the Chief Election Officer (CEO) for deleting her voter Id without any valid reason.

Of late, she has brought to the notice of the CEO and all citizens of Telangana whose names were deleted and who are re-applying for fresh voter identities instead of demanding for restoration, that the Form 6 which is the application for new voters has a self-declaration in it that says: “I have not been issued any EPIC (Electoral Photo Id Card) at any time in the past in any constituency”

Now, this is untruthful because these are people who had been issued EPIC earlier. Further the same form says that “Making false declaration related to electoral rolls is an offence punishable under the Representation of People’s Act and also Indian Penal Code.”

Thus the people are unwittingly giving false declarations and committing offences or rather being forced to commit an offence.

Dr. Lubna told TwoCircles.net, “The deleted names have not been restored despite several demands from us. And now instead of issuing a separate form for those whose names have been erroneously deleted, we are being asked to fill in a form meant for fresh voters.”

She has had a series of meeting with the CEO demanding for segregation of deleted re-registration of voters and fresh voters, but both fresh as well as old voters are being made to fill in the same form, Form No 6.

Petitions in this regard have gone to the CEO from Magsaysay award winner Sandeep Pandey, Lubna Sarwath, Chakri S, and Guru Moorthy all from the Socialist Party (India) but not heeded.

On December 31st Sarwath met the Chief Election Officer Rajat Kumar once more at his office, she sought an explanation on this blunder wherein lakhs of voters whose names have been illegally deleted not just in Telangana but all over India are invoking upon themselves criminal proceedings.

In the press release of the Socialist Party released on January 1st 2019, the General Secretary of the party mentions that Rajat Kumar, CEO  had no answer to this question and apologised for the same. He also said that the CEO cannot be held responsible for everything.  And asked them to approach the court of law against the Election Commission of India for these irregularities.

The Socialist Party members have contacted a supreme Court lawyer to file a case against the ECI. They have also contacted Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) who work to improve governance and strengthen democracy by continuous work in the area of Electoral and Political Reforms. And Prof Jagdeep Chokkar has assured support from ADR saying that this is a very serious point.

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post People whose voter IDs were deleted by mistake may have committed perjury, say activists; demand attention appeared first on SabrangIndia.