As the electoral rolls were being prepared ahead of the first General Elections in 1951-52, there were reports that lakhs of women in certain states like Rajasthan and Hyderabad had been “disenfranchised" by the Election Commission of India. Then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, while receiving a delegation from a women’s organisation of Jaipur, had “assured" them of some kind of remedial action.

However, law minister Dr BR Ambedkar—replying to a question by HV Kamath in the Provisional Parliament on August 27, 1951—stated that a prime minister’s assurance should also be subject to the law of the land. This forced an apologetic Nehru to immediately clarify in the House that neither he nor any of his colleagues could give any assurance that was against the law. Admitting that he had his sympathies with those women, Nehru said he was careful not to interfere in any way with the discretion of the Election Commissioner.

After a lapse of nearly a month, the matter again rocked the Provisional Parliament on September 25 when Shrimati Durgabai (on behalf of Shrimati Renuka Roy) raised the issue of the petition of Mahila Samiti Jaipur regarding the fate of women voters of Rajasthan. This time, the real issue came out. Many women in Rajasthan as well as their relatives had refused to disclose their real names (perhaps as a result of social orthodoxy that prevailed then). They preferred to identify themselves as daughter or wife in relation to the head of family. Dr. Ambedkar defended Election Commission of India’s decision of enrolling voters only through their real names. On August 27, he had already stated that there could not be a different set of laws for men and women voters. Thus Dr Ambedkar, an apostle of social and economic inclusivity, made it clear that social philosophy could not override the law as it stood.

The Election Commission of India recently came under fire from opposition parties and opinion-makers for its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll of Bihar where the assembly elections are due later this year (the term of the House expires on November 22, 2025). It has been accused of “disenfranchising" 6.5 million (65 lakh) electors, or in effect declaring them non-citizens overnight. To this main narrative, Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, had added auxiliary accusations of large-scale irregularities in electoral roll in Karnataka. The aim appears not to question the process (SIR) but also undermine the credibility of the institution (ECI) that has a history of 75 years.

How did they derive the purported exclusion figure of 65 lakh? More than 7.24 crore electors in Bihar have actually filled up their enumeration forms by the last date: August 1. The enrolment figure previously stood at 7,89,69,844. This figure was SSR (Special Supplementary Revision) compliant but not SIR compliant. An intensive revision has the effect of recasting the electoral roll, where weeding out the names of dead or migrated voters is obligatory.

In the last 15 years of SVEEP (Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation) programme, the Election Commission’s priority has been to maximise voter enrolment and electoral participation. However, accuracy of the electoral roll is as important as its inclusivity. Going by the latest figures (August 21) that less than 71,000 persons have filed claims for errors of inclusion or exclusion, the accusation of 6.5 million people “disenfranchised" appear far-fetched.

An intensive revision of the electoral roll, which involves house-to-house enumeration, is neither new nor against the rules. It is crucial for maintaining the fidelity of the roll. Election Commission of India is obliged to conduct summary or intensive........

© News18