DISAGREEMENT OVER SRI: A DEEP SHADOW OF DOUBT AND DISTRUST OVER THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF DEMOCRACY: DEVANAND SINGH

DISAGREEMENT OVER SRI: A DEEP SHADOW OF DOUBT AND DISTRUST OVER THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF DEMOCRACY: DEVANAND SINGH

24-JAN-ENG 17

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA---------------------------India's democratic framework is as vast as it is sensitive. The entire edifice rests on the pillar of the electoral roll. This is no ordinary document, but a fundamental confirmation of citizenship and constitutional rights. The names recorded in this list determine who will hold power, in which direction power will shift, and at what pace the heartbeat of democracy will beat. At a time when the Election Commission initiated the Special Intensive Revision (SRI), it was natural for the political landscape to be stirred, but the turmoil we are witnessing is not merely a disagreement over a technical process, but a deep shadow of doubt and distrust cast upon the very essence of democracy.

The debate surrounding SRI is not simply about whether the electoral roll should be updated or not, but about how this update is being carried out, under whose supervision, using what powers, and who might be affected by it. The opposition alleges that the entire process is opaque, rushed, and being implemented while disregarding constitutional limits, while the Election Commission claims that it is a necessary step because continuous improvement of the electoral roll is essential due to migration, deaths, duplicate entries, and identity discrepancies across the country. The conflict between their claims is no longer just a battle of political rhetoric; it is a serious dispute revolving around the very soul of the country's electoral process.

The harsh language used by Fakhrul Hasan Chand of the Samajwadi Party in criticizing the SRI makes it clear that the opposition parties view this process not merely as a flawed system, but as a form of constitutional encroachment. They argue that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the final judgment has not yet been delivered, yet the Election Commission is rapidly pushing ahead with the SRI. Their biggest question is: under what law does the Election Commission derive the authority to require citizens to fill out additional forms to reconfirm their citizenship or voter status? Is this a new way of verifying citizenship? Is this a process that casts doubt on both the right to vote and identity itself? And if not, why are different standards being applied in different states? What constitutional principle does this inequality conform to?

These questions are not trivial, as they directly point to the credibility of the Election Commission. The Commission has always been considered an institution that adheres to rules, free from political influence, but when it itself is accused of bias and ambiguity, it is seen as the first crack in the country's democratic architecture. The Samajwadi Party's concerns are therefore deeper, as they see this as a process of targeted exclusion in the name of purifying the voter list, which could affect specific groups—the poor, minorities, and opposition supporters.

The RJD's approach is relatively balanced, but it also questions the haste in the process. Mrityunjay Tiwari says that they will wait for the Supreme Court hearing, as that is the fundamental solution to the dispute. This stance also implies that the opposition views this issue as a constitutional challenge separate from the electoral noise. After all, while the right to vote may not be a fundamental right, it is the most important of democratic rights. If the process of confirming it becomes controversial, how can the fairness of the elections be trusted?

The Congress is viewing this dispute on two levels—one political and the other constitutional. What Sandeep Dikshit said takes the allegations in another direction. He says that the Election Commission is implementing the SRI (Special Revision of Electoral Rolls) with a kind of "stubbornness," even though its impact is already visible, especially in Bihar, where the list of deleted names was such that the possibility of political gain or loss was clearly evident. He alleges that most of those whose names were removed belonged to communities associated with the opposition. This allegation is extremely serious because if even the possibility of influencing election results through the voter list arises, the entire structure of democracy is shaken.

Dixit also stated, at a second level, that linking the return of Bangladeshi citizens to the voter registration process is wrong. If an infiltrator has been found, clear and concrete evidence should be provided, but this process is not a tool for identifying illegal citizens. This is clearly a critique of the political attempt to link the voter list to the debate on nationalism and security, while the reality is that the primary objective of the voter registration process, if viewed in the commission's own words, is merely technical improvement.

Congress spokesperson Surendra Rajput's statement is even more institutional. He expresses faith in the judiciary and says that the party will finalize its stance only after the court's decision. This indicates that there is a section within the opposition that favors viewing this entire controversy through a constitutional lens and believes that the Supreme Court is the institution that can ultimately determine the validity of this process.

This controversy has now centered on the question of the extent to which the process of voter list revision falls under the Election Commission's authority. Does the commission have the right to demand additional documents from citizens? Doesn't this cast doubt on the right to vote? And doesn't this process disregard the diversity that exists in the country? Has the process been applied equally to all sections of society, taking into account inequalities and social complexities? The opposition alleges that it has not. They claim that the process is legally ambiguous, lacks transparency, is politically suspect, and could lead to the unwarranted disenfranchisement of voters.

Conversely, the Election Commission claims that updating the voter list is essential for the health of democracy. The commission states that a clean list is impossible without correcting for migration, deaths, identity discrepancies, duplicate entries, and fictitious names. And if the list is not clean, how can the credibility of elections be ensured? The problem lies in how the commission is implementing this entire process, which is the root cause of the controversy. The fine line between reform and purification becomes extremely sensitive in politics, especially when the direction of electoral outcomes can be altered by just a few percentage points of votes.

The most serious aspect of this entire controversy is its legal dimension, as the Supreme Court will now have to decide whether the Election Commission has the authority to implement a process like SRI. The court will also have to consider whether this updating process can be carried out without the consent of state governments, whether it infringes upon the right to vote, and whether it falls within or outside the scope of Article 324 of the Constitution. The court's decision will not only determine the legality of SRI but will also shape the direction of every future electoral process.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that this controversy is not limited to a single state, party, or election. It is a question of the very soul of India's democracy. If the voter list itself becomes controversial, how can faith in elections be maintained? If names are removed on a large scale and there is suspicion that the basis for removal was not technical but political, a wave of distrust will quickly spread throughout society. This is the fear that is unsettling the opposition, and this is the challenge that the Election Commission faces; every action it takes is now not just a procedural matter, but a test of trust.

Ultimately, this entire controversy will determine the direction of India's democratic future. Whether SRI is a technical exercise or a constitutional risk is still being debated, but what is clear is that it focuses on a sensitive document like the voter list, any changes to which can have far-reaching political, social, and constitutional implications. The Supreme Court's decision, the Election Commission's transparency, and the integrity of political parties—these three pillars will determine in the coming times whether SRI strengthens democracy or leads it down a path of distrust.

The strength of democracy lies in every citizen being able to vote without fear, doubt, or uncertainty. Therefore, every experiment conducted on the voter list is not merely a technical decision; it is a matter of trust. It is this trust that transforms elections from a mere process into a mandate, and when it comes to trust, giving paramount importance to transparency, legitimacy, and equality is in the best interest of the country and the Constitution.