Bihar’s SIR exercise is a threat to right to vote — across India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ies2OcDnaFc Jul 16, 2025 Indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/yogendra-yadav-writes-bihars-sir-exercise-is-a-threat-to-right-to-vote-across-india-10126554/ While the relief signalled by the Supreme Court in its hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar can only be welcomed, it carries a serious risk of distracting us from the real issue. Our focus may be diverted to the inclusion of Aadhaar, on revising the impossible timelines of this exercise and on the ground reality in Bihar. Once on the voters’ list, a name cannot be removed without the proper process. Finally, as Ornit Shani’s celebrated history How India Became Democratic shows, the making of universal franchise required the ECI to take unusual steps. Over the years, the ECI has gone out of its way to evolve protocols for the inclusion of “liminal” citizens who may have been left out in any routine, bureaucratic exercise: Nomadic communities, homeless persons, sex workers, transgender persons, orphans, undocumented citizens and non-resident Indians.
In this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ies2OcDnaFc , Yogendra Yadav highlights the TDP's concern about the citizenship issue and the potential exclusion of disadvantaged communities. He argues that the revision threatens the universal adult franchise and the inclusive practices established over 75 years. Yogendra Yadav cites the "logic of encompassment" and the importance of substantive citizenship. He predicts the Election Commission will release favorable statistics and anticipates a Supreme Court hearing on July 25, 2023, which could impact the revision's future.
(from youtube stranscript) Under Edit. Express ran a story very important story that shows that while the hearing in the Supreme Court is on, the
election commission has issued instructions throughout the country to say we are going to do it in the rest of the country.
The effective date will be 1st of January 2026.
my fear is that now the debate will get narrowed down and focused on two issues which are
important one the nature of proofs that the election commission is demanding. Are these enough? Why not AADHAR?
And second is the deadlines in Bihar. The situation on the ground is completely farcical and you know every day we get to hear this morning I heard
this audio from uh you know officer to
the BLO
that's really what's happening so my
fear is that we will keep now focusing
on Bihar on deadlines and on the nature
of documents
and we would lose sight of the big issue
the big constitutional foundational
issue of our republic and that's why
I've focused on that issue which is to
say all right suppose the deadlines are
relaxed suppose Aadhaar is accepted
suppose uh uh the situation is much
better on the ground than it is in Bihar
in that case is it acceptable my answer
is a resounding no because it goes not
against the constitution. There's a
legal constitutional point there. But
more than the constitution, there is a
certain architecture of citizenship that
has been built in this country for the
last 75 years and it goes against every
single thing of that architecture.
That's the principal objection and
that's the point I want to highlight.
Let's not even if we get a relief in
Bihar which I think we will I mean you
know going by what things are someone
has to grant a relief in Bihar. This
thing cannot just go on but it has to be
stopped for the rest of the country on
grounds of principle not on grounds of
practicality.
No absolutely sir. In fact I should tell
the readers that the piece is uh you
have centered the whole piece around the
concept of universal adult franchise and
citizenship. I see you've quoted
academics like th Marshall Nira Jagopal
Jal Mukulik Manerji etc. So we'll get to
those concepts very quickly. I just
wanted to ask you a political question
first which is uh today a lead story in
a bunch of papers is that uh the TDP has
now written uh to the EC asking for um a
proper clarification that is this going
to be a citizenship issue ultimately
like that's that's the essence of the
question I think and the TDP is not just
any party it is the second largest party
in the NDA with 16 seats um an ally of
the BJP an ally which the BJP really
depends on to to to maintain its
government. So how do you see uh this um
this sort of question posed by the TDP?
Is there a is there a crack or uh what
is going on here?
Uh it is important because for the first
time a proper official NDA allies has
spoken out. There have been reports of
disqu among NDA partners in Bihar
especially the Dalith partners that they
have. There has been disqu there have
been informal murmurings but no one has
come out and spoken in public. TDP is
the first party uh which has raised
issues. They have raised one in
principle issue that of citizenship that
it should not be linked to citizenship.
That's a very important question they
raised. The other questions are about
the timing and the nature of
certificates etc. this. So, uh in one
sense it's a very limited intervention
because TDP is saying we don't have a
problem with SIR give proper notice and
delink it with citizenship.
Uh that's in a sense what they are
saying. Uh my objection goes much
further. But of course uh the fact that
an NDA allies has come out and
officially put put it on paper is a very
important move and I think we should be
witnessing some more allies now coming
out because uh I look at ship sa I can't
imagine that ship sa would be confident
that most of its voters will manage to
be on the voters list if something like
this is exercised. So this is and then
and and to be fair uh there are large
number of leaders within BJP who draw
their support from very disadvantaged
communities as well. So I'm sure they
must also be raising their voice. All
this is internal but first crack is very
important.
Now so coming back to your piece um so
these multiple concepts that you have
explored one of them uh an important one
seems to be something known as the logic
of encompassment um especially when it
comes to uh citizenship and voting
rights. Uh would you want to sort of
elaborate on that and why you think that
logic is now being sort of tapered away?
Yeah. So that's a central argument. I'm
glad you picked that up. That's a
central argument here. I'm saying look
our constitution provides a rock solid
foundation that was necessary but that
was not sufficient after the
constitution is promulgated there have
been practices which I call the logic of
encompassment drawing upon anomaly work
ry work I call logic of encompassment
these two things put together had
created a situation in which universal
adult franchise was truly made universal
What does the constitution says?
Constitution says if you are born in
this country and if you reside in this
country, you are a citizen of this
country. No other question can be asked.
That's a basis of constitution. And the
constitution says once you are deemed to
be a citizen in whichever be deemed not
declared that is to say on something
like a voter list for example once you
are deemed to be a citizen then that
thing cannot be taken away from you
without specific procedure. So there's a
presumption of continuity once deemed
then you continue to be a citizen. This
is a rock solid foundation of the
constitution.
This was followed by legal legalities,
rules and administrative practices which
I call uh which is which can be called
this logic of encompassment. You know we
have to encompass as many as possible
inclusivity. What are these? Number one,
uh there was a basic choice in favor of
owners being on the state rather than
being on the citizenship. It's a very
major choice we made unlike the US and I
quote the US. US is a very good example
in many ways all over the world for how
not to conduct elections. Uh because in
the US the onus is on you the citizen.
You go register yourself before
election. If you don't register it's all
right. So what is the result in 2024
which is one of the higher registration
rates because of the nature of contest
only 74% of adults in the US were on the
voters list
they were not the rest were not even on
the voters list uh in India for on the
same year because we had election on the
same year in India it was 96%
that is the difference between two kinds
of systems so the first thing was that
we went for a system which where the
responsibilities on the state the
officials election commission go and
enroll everyone that's your
responsibility even if the person does
not know anything about elections has no
idea that's one second is the
presumption doctrine the presumption is
you are a citizen if I see an adult
person who happens to live here and live
here does not mean have a house person
who happens to be on footpath person who
is homeless adult person who has no
documents whatsoever. My presumption is
that you are a citizen unless there are
specific unless someone complains unless
I have specific grounds to believe that
you are not then the presumption is that
you are a citizu
whatsoever. Presumption is what makes
all the difference. If the presumption
is that you are a citizen, 25% without
document will make it. If the
presumption is that you are not, those
25% would be thrown out. That's the
second thing. And third has been
extraordinary practices of election
commission to say no one should be left
behind and it started with Sukumar Sin.
We must remember and salute that great
first ele chief election commissioner of
India and Ornit Shani's book uh on
Indian elections. uh you know he's an
Israeli scholar who's written a
beautiful book on India uh on the
archival sources of the first election
of India. It tells you that pains that
election commission took to ensure that
our electoral roles are truly universal.
So these three things choice of system
rule of presumption and practices of
inclusivity these three things put
together on put on the constitutional
foundation. Gave us a system which has
resulted in our voters list which he on
the side of inclusivity which have many
mistakes but which are not which have
never been accused of systematically
excluding any section of society. It's
an extraordinary achievement. And my
problem with SIRIR special intensive
revision which is not a revision at all
which is actually fresh writing. My
principal objection is that you are
rolling back that 75 years of glorious
history of Indian democracy. So even if
all other practical things are met even
then I think this is dismantling of that
architecture and this is uh in a sense
beginning of that other logic logic of
uh uh exclusion.
Yeah, thank you for that extremely
elaborate answer Yogim G and on on that
note. Um I think just one or two
questions left on this logic of
exclusion. Um you have quoted the work
of Nira Gopal Jalal who I think um uh
you you've looked at her work
citizenship imperiled India's fragile
democracy and I think this is a very
important line. um we are witnessing
major reconfigurations of citizenship
that would result in not the realization
of substantive citizenship but in fact a
substantive erosion of even formal
citizenship. So it is a very weighted uh
line. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit
on the concept of substantive
citizenship and on formal citizenship
and what is happening to the two right
now?
Yeah. Uh once again drawing upon the
work of profess I mean you know it so
happens that the four authors that I've
quoted all are women great academics
who've done fantastic work on Indian
citizenship. Why is it that women have
done the best work on citizenship? I
don't know but they have professor G's
argument and mind you this this book
came out at the time of CA. Uh that's
when she had written it but in a sense
sir not takes it even further. So this
is not something she's written now.
Basically you see you have that famous
PH Marshall concept of uh citizenship
which is about uh uh uh equal
participation in a political community.
you know everyone equally participate me
everyone is an equal member of a
political community and now how do you
do that you do it uh by political
inclusion but
the citizenship doesn't include doesn't
stop only at political inclusion it must
be social inclusion must be economic
inclusion so in a sense what professor
jaal has said is that look in India in
the last 70 years then uh we have
achieved political inclusion but
substantive inclusion that is to say
socioeconomic
making them equal members of a
community. The homeless person uh the
person who uh has nothing to eat uh you
know to say that they are equal members
of political community like called India
is a bit of a joke. So we have not so so
while we were to go from formal to
substantive this after 75 years that's
what Indian republic should have said
all right in the first 75 years we
managed to have formal inclusion of
everyone formal citizenship political
citizenship by way of vote let's now
make it substantive let's ensure that in
social and economic terms uh in terms of
recognition everyone is treated equally
instead of that and that's the important
point she's making instead of that we
are now going back even on the formal
right so it's actually it's a request uh
that's in that that sentence in a sense
captures all that I want to say in this
article
thank you sir as as I think that readers
should go and read this article because
this is I think uh your first two
articles were more on the practical side
of things with surveys and field reports
and uh you know how many people will be
disenfranchised and the practical
obstacles that they're facing but This
one really touches on the political
theory of citizenship and rights, voting
rights, fundamental rights. Um in that
situ because you know the because see do
remember what has this practice of the
first 75 years achieved this
architecture what it achieved is that
right to vote was not merely a political
formality as anthropologist Mukulabani
who I quote her work has demonstrated
that it it entered in the domain of the
sacred you know people people you know
there's this thing of when you ask them
to show their the ink they show it with
a certain pride
that is that is what we we seek to take
away now. So that's why it's so
important.
No no absolutely that that part that
every person is the same in that sense
like that one vote is for everyone no
matter who you are where you come from.
Yeah it's true. Then then and Yogend
then last question. Um again now on the
pragmatic side of things on the on the
on the political side of things um what
what are we expecting in in the next few
weeks? Is there going to be a lull in
this issue do you think? Um because you
know it's it's been in the in the
headlines for the past few days uh and
I'm sure the the EC is not liking so
much attention on it. Do you think they
will try to sort of um uh sort of calm
us down by giving us some, you know,
some concessions? What do you think is
going to happen?
I think the first thing that's bound to
happen is that they'll calm everyone
down with a dose of nice statistics.
Lovely statistics are going to come out.
Uh and it'll be anything between 95% to
102% or so. uh the EC is going to claim
that look within 25 days we have done it
all 95% of eligible people of Bihar have
filled the proforma have submitted it uh
it could be 98 it could even be 102 and
don't laugh at it because uh the EC
could actually claim that look that 100%
was only people up to January but post
January some new people have come so
we've done so number one you're going to
be fed with some Lovely statistics.
And is it 84 right now? Did I read it
right? Are they saying 84 right now?
Uh last evening they were saying
probably 86 or something.
Okay. Something like right. Right. Huh.
So So uh you know it's going and then
they would also do some nice uh
mathematics to tell you that of the 4%
who were left out actually they were
dead actually they were people away
because you had some statistics
yesterday as well. is is already in
anticipation. You know, while they
cannot manage the reality, they do
manage the perception very well, I must
say. Uh so you already have statistics
being pedled out and newspapers putting
it on the front page without doing an
elementary check. So you would be fed
lovely statistics that uh if that if in
case we reached only 97, it's only
because the remaining 3% should not have
been there in the first place at all.
Things of that kind. uh that is what you
would go. So that's one that is bound to
happen. Number two, uh protests and
unease is bound to go up. Uh uh there's
a public hearing in Patna on 21st of the
victims. Uh political parties are going
to raise this issue. So it's going to
the tempers are going to rise and most
importantly uh the issue is coming up to
the Supreme Court. 25th is when the
deadline is and election commission in
its original guidelines had said we
would receive all the forms till 25th
and we would release a draft rule on the
1st of August. In between these two
dates is the crucial hearing of the
Supreme Court. uh and I'm and then
before 21st of July the election
commission of India is to file its
affidavit in the Supreme Court
responding to all the issues that people
like me had raised. Uh so uh a lot is
going to happen. The question is what is
the EC going to say because funnily what
has happened in the last few weeks is
while the election commission has made
large number of concessions on the
ground uh because that's the only way of
doing it and the latest concession being
handwriting
that's really happening but all these
concessions are in the informal domain
the original order of 24th of June
remains intact not touched. So that's
the problem. There is a huge discrepancy
and I'm waiting for election
commission's epidab to say how they are
going to explain it. Uh so my own sense
is that a lot of action is anticipated
and the critical thing would be the
Supreme Court hearing on the 28th
because the Supreme Court in the last
hearing practically made it absolutely
clear that look you cannot ignore Radha.
Uh but to keep the form they said okay
we are putting it as suggestion. uh so
we have to see whether Supreme Court now
takes it forward and all these reports
of malpractices are also bound to come
up before the Supreme Court. uh so the
real question is whether Supreme Court
would allow all this to happen under its
nose because in the last instance that
uh those uh inclusive practices and the
constitutional foundation uh which I
speak about in this article Supreme
Court is the custodian of those two. So
that really is the most critical moment
that we have to wait for.
So seems like uh the issue is far far
far from sort of uh rested or shelved on
a on a bench somewhere. So in which case
I think we can expect a lot more uh
pieces on this and videos on this from
Yogendra