When the Election Commission (EC) announced the “Special Intensive Amendment” (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral roll on 24 June, cited the need to ensure that all voters on the revised roll meet the eligibility criteria of age and citizenship – which were added after 2003, the year in which the final intensive amendment was made in the state.
But barely a year ago, when the question of alleged illegal immigrants became a flashpoint during the assembly elections in neighboring Jharkhand, the top official of the pole panel in the state defended the “detailed provisions” of the EC to prepare the electoral rolls – especially those who belonged to citizenship. Incidentally, the final intensive amendment in Jharkhand was also held in 2003, as Bihar the same year.
In fact, in an affidavit filed in the Jharkhand High Court on September 3, 2024, in a case related to alleged illegal immigrants, the voter ID card, the Chief Electoral Officer of the state, including the state’s Chief Electoral Officer, K. Ravi Kumar, who received the documents of identity, cited the instructions of the EC for the natural role, saying that the Commission had said that the commission had said that the election person had said.
However, in the same affidavit, the CEO of Jharkhand also underlined the limitations of the powers of an election registration officer (ERO), which is particularly “in the absence of any reliable charge and the existence of documents issued by the legitimate government to initiate an individual citizenship or investigate citizenship of a person.” The affidavit states that in case of any doubt about an applicant’s citizenship, the ERO could consult the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) before taking a decision, and in the case of objections filed as Form 7, the burden of evidence was initially with the object.
The High Court, Jharkhand resident and BJP worker, was hearing a case filed by Danyal Danish, who demanded action against the alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh. In August 2024, the court asked the union and state government institutions to register an affidavit on steps taken to deal with the issue.
The CEO’s affidavit provided a detailed description of the processes after Aeros, while it underlined that it is the central government through MHA, which could determine citizenship.
“It is presented honorablely that the Election Commission of India has prepared detailed provisions about the entry of names during the preparation of the electoral roll, and the names on their citizenship have been included in the deletion laws and manuals on doubt,” the Halfnama said.
The story continues below this advertisement
The CEO said that the Commission had established “clear safety measures” to prevent enrollment of disqualified individuals on electoral rolls, 2023. According to this manual, ERO must satisfy itself or himself that an applicant is an Indian citizen. The documents that the ERO can rely on, the manual says, although there is no standard and similar documents, an example of documents, which is “the national register of citizens, wherever it is present, the citizenship certificate issued by a competent authority, India and a valid passport issued by the birth certificate.”
The affidavit further stated that in case of any doubt, the ERO should refer to the MHA to determine according to the Citizenship Act. In case of objection to an electoral on rolls, it will have to be filed in a form 7. “In the case of an objection filed in Form 7, the person who has objected to the removal of the name from the electoral roll on the ground is not a citizen of India. In India, in India, the affidavit said.
Importantly, the affidavit states: “In the existence of any reliable allegations and the existence of documents issued by the legitimate government, the right of the ERO is banned to initiate an investigation or investigation in a person’s citizenship … In addition, it should be a reason to doubt that any certificate produced by the applicant. Rolls to do any certificate produced by the applicant. The officers who issued that certificate (referenced).
In this case, the CEO said, the petitioner did not file any Form 7, and if anyone was filed in the future, the ERO will take appropriate action after appropriate investigation. However, the affidavit mentioned that the District Election Officer of Sahibganj-cum-Deputy Commissioner received a complaint with former BJP President Karthik Kumar Saha on August 27, 2024, alleging that 71 electors who had epic cards were allegedly, they were allegedly Bangladeshi and therefore were unfit for playing.
The story continues below this advertisement
On arriving at the comment on the complaint, the CEO of Jharkhand refused to comment, saying that the case was sub-judge. District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Sahibganj, Hemant Sati said that an inquiry was conducted in the allegations against 71 voters and the report submitted to the court. He said that all the voters concerned were living in the state for 30-40 years and they were found to have valid government documents like Aadhaar cards. Many people also got the benefit of government schemes like PM Avas Yojana.
Hearing the petition last year, the High Court had asked the deputy commissioners of six districts – Godda, Zamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deogghar – where “most infiltrators” were informed, to give details of such individuals, who were “2024, 2024 orders after going through a record through their inhabitants, voter cards.
Except for Sahibganj, all the DC disputed the allegation that illegal immigrants were present in their districts. The court then asked the state and union governments to form a fact-khoj committee, which was challenged by the Government of Jharkhand in the Supreme Court. The case is pending in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
According to the EC order of June 24, all 7.8 crore existing existing voters in Bihar will have to fill the calculation forms by July 25 to join the draft role, which has been scheduled for publication on 1 August. In addition, voters added to the roll after January 1, 2003 were added to the year of final intensive amendment – need to submit documents to establish their elegability, including citizens’ information.
The story continues below this advertisement
Opposition parties and civil society groups have expressed concern that the practice can separate real voters. The EC’s decision to operate the SIR has been challenged through several petitions in the Supreme Court, which has asked the Commission to file its response by 21 July.
Disenfranchisement (T) Election Safety Measures (T) Election Commission Indian Citizenship (T) Election Roll Amendment (T) Indian Express (T) Current Affair
