Need for Amendments to Electoral Laws

Need to bring amendments to our electoral and citizenship Acts to cleanse electoral rolls and frame a prospective method for determining citizenship

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that was done in Bihar and is being done now across all States, is a ‘descent into farce’, as an editorial in The Hindu put it. The SIR is fast making a laughing stock of the ECI but the blow it is delivering to the very electoral system, the foundation of our democracy, is nothing short of tragic.

The farcical SIR makes it imperative for the government to take a fresh look at its retrospective demands for documents to determine eligibility of voters, the flawed procedures for registering voters and for defining citizenship. What has been exposed is the gross lack of accuracy of India's electoral rolls and the discriminatory laws for conferring citizenship. The following suggestions for having accurate and clean electoral rolls and for having a prospective process for according citizenship are put up for consideration by all:

1. Need to have a single continuously updated local database of citizens/residents for generating the electoral roll: The continued errors in the electoral rolls with dead persons’ names, duplication of names, large numbers of voters at single or fake addresses, etc., evidenced in the final electoral rolls of Bihar despite the SIR, demand a relook at the procedures for creating electoral rolls. Such errors are nothing new and have been existing in electoral rolls as a regular feature since decades. 

To remove these errors, there is a distinct need for a system, as in several other countries, to create a single, citizens’/residents’ digitised central data-base linked to the birth and death registry and in-and-out migration. This centralised data-base of citizens/residents should be accessible at local (GP/ward) level, linked to their unique citizens’ ID such as Aadhaar, and to a Family ID (created for instance under the Kutumba scheme in Karnataka) and their Unique Address ID. (De-duplication of duplicate entries will not be possible across, or within States, without a unique citizen’s ID such as Aadhaar.)

With the Centre’s Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023, coming into effect from October 1, 2023, the Union Home Ministry has already issued a notification confirming the Centre’s intent for digitization and centralization of birth and death records, which can be further linked to the preparation or maintenance of the population register, electoral rolls, ration card, passport, driving licence, etc. While this is a good beginning, this database needs to be accessible at local ward/GP level and expanded to include in-and-out migration data.

The initial list needs to be created at GP/ward level through intensive door-to-door surveys listing out all those who are above 18 years and ordinarily resident there with their Aadhaar as identity document. In other countries, the onus to report themselves at this local office, if they are migrating in or out of that rural or urban jurisdiction, is placed on all residents, including migrants and foreign nationals, so that there is

continuous updation of the data-base.

This would enable continuous removal of dead persons’ names, de-duplication of duplicate voters (when linked to Aadhaar), disallow the massive last-minute additions and deletions of electors at bogus addresses, or hundreds of names being added at a single address, that are now taking place just before elections.

This updated data-base can be, as an option, socially audited locally by publishing, or reading out of the draft roll at Polling Booth Area level of GP/Ward by EROs, as already mandated in the ECI’s ‘Manual on Electoral Rolls’ (2023), Para 11.2.4(vi) and Para 24.1.2.

2. Need to allow temporary migrants to opt for place of ‘ordinary residence’: The mass deletion of migrants in the electoral roll of Bihar, and now in the other States, is also of particular concern. Rule 7 of the Registration of Electors Rules, ‘Statement under Section 20’, says individuals temporarily away from their usual place of residence are still considered ordinarily resident there. But despite this provision, there has been large-scale deletion of temporary migrant workers. Their names have been deleted merely because they were unable to fill the enumeration forms as they were away and not present at their residence at the time of the SIR. This makes it imperative to devise a system of ensuring that temporary migrants, who work for a few months in several cities or States, do not get disenfranchised.

Officials and defence personnel who are posted at different places, away from their usual place of residence are required to submit to the registration officer of their constituency, a statement in a designated form [Forms 1, 2, 2A and 3] that they wish their names to be retained at their place of ‘ordinary residence’. 

Further, Section 20A of the RPA Act 1950, added through an amendment in 2010, dated 10.02.2011, and Rule 8A of the amended RoE Rules 1960, allow non-resident Indians (NRIs), who are not even resident in the country, to apply for registration with Form 6A and vote in the constituency of their passport address.

There is an imperative need to create a similar facility to temporary migrants, who are away seeking a livelihood, by amending the RPA Act to incorporate a Section 20B, adding a Rule 8B in the RoE Rules, and allowing a Form 6C for their registration. This would allow temporary migrants to also submit a statement that they wish their names to be retained at their place of ordinary residence disallowing the massive deletions

that are happening now.

3. Need to revoke amendment to Rule 13 on “Form for claims and objections” of the

Registration of Electors Rules (RoER) 1960, dated 17th June 2022: Many deletions of eligible voters are happening on the charge that Form 6 is being filled by voters who are making a false declaration that they are first-time voters. Till recently, one had to use Form 6 for inclusion of one's name, whenever one’s name was missing, even if one had voted earlier. The heading of Form 6 merely said, “Application for inclusion of name in electoral roll”. But an amendment to Rule 13, on “Form for claims and objections” of the Representation of 

Electors Rules (RoER) 1960, dated 17th June 2022, stated: “Every claim for inclusion of name in the roll as new elector shall be in Form 6…” (emphasis added), and not for ‘any voter’ as earlier. And the latest Form 6 on ECI’s website says, “Application Form for New Voters”. The Form for Bihar went further and

said, “Application Form for First Time Voters” (emphases added).

Hence, the 33,692 Forms 6 submitted by applicants in Mahadevapura constituency of Karnataka, which were filled not by 'First time voters' but by 70, 80 or 90-year-olds, as revealed by Sri Rahul Gandhi, are the result of the above impediment created by not having a Form to submit when one's name has been deleted, deliberately or otherwise, even though one had voted earlier! 

The Amendment to Rule 13, making Form 6 applicable only for ‘new voters’ or ‘first time voters’ only appears to have the questionable intent of saying: “once your nameis deleted (deliberately or otherwise), it shall remain deleted forever”, unless one is prepared to make a false declaration in Form 6 and make oneself liable for prosecution! Therefore, there is an imperative need to demand that this Amendment to Rule 13 of RoE Rules be withdrawn to allow Form 6 to be used for any claim for inclusion of a name as earlier.

4. The SIR of Bihar identified less than 0.1% as illegal immigrants: Though the supposed aim of the SIR was to identify illegal immigrants/foreigners, the final roll after the SIR, published in Bihar on 1st Oct 2025, has shown that out of 68 lakh deletions, 99% referred to names of dead persons, migrants, and those whose names were duplicates. A mere 1% of deletions out of 69 lakh deletions, or about 69,000 names, were likely to have been names of illegal immigrants. This figure is less than 0.1% of the total electorate of 7.42 crore voters of Bihar. So, is it worth putting tremendous pressure on 96.88 crore genuine citizens of the country, if it is going to end up identifying not even 0.1% as likely illegals? Should the exercise rather be to introduce a prospective, foolproof system of defining who is a citizen?

5. India’s historically generous humanitarian tradition to be recognised: If a mere 0.1% are going to be identified as doubtful citizens, whom the state failed to identify while they entered, the effort to identify them now should not end up disenfranchising the genuine citizens. Instead, (as argued in support of this in another editorial of ‘The Hindu’ of 8.1.2026) there is a need for extrapolating to the question of citizenship the age-old principle followed by the justice system, that it is acceptable to set an accused free for lack of conclusive evidence, but it is unjust to convict wrongly even one innocent person. The SIR is a “leap into the phantom world of foreigners taking over the country”, says the editorial of The Hindu dated 8.1.26.

The Task Force on Border Management quoted the figure of 15 million illegal migrants in 2001. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government stated in Parliament that there were 12 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants in India.[60. 12 or 15 million illegal migrants constitute a mere 1% of the 140 crores population of this country. Migrants from neighbouring countries have been coming to this country in search of livelihood, or due to persecution or other reasons for centuries, and there is a civilisational history of this land accepting and assimilating them out of compassion, as in the case of Jews fleeing from Romans, Tibetans fleeing from Chinese and Tamils fleeing from Sri Lankans. Hence, there is a case for assimilating as citizens the 1% whomay be illegal immigrants, in line with our historically generous humanitarian tradition and our civilisational tenet of ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’. 

6. India has not signed the UN Convention on Status of Refugees nor its protocol: Despite the above historical tradition, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 has been criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion for excluding Muslims. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called it “fundamentally discriminatory", adding that while India's "goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome", this should be accomplished through a non- discriminatory "robust national asylum system". However, India remains one of the few major refugee-hosting nations that has neither signed the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor its 1967 Protocol.

Legal writers have thus written: “This absence creates a legal vacuum wherein refugee protection depends not on enforceable rights enshrined in domestic legislation, but on executive discretion, ad hoc policies, and occasional judicial intervention. ….. What matters is establishing rights-based protection frameworks ensuring that India’s historically generous humanitarian tradition translates into legally enforceable protections rather than politically contingent charity”.

(https://cplan.in/indias-unsigned-obligation-the-1951-refugee-convention-absence-

and-its-impact-on-asylum-protection/)

7. CAAs of 1986 and 2004 require retrospective documents which most cannot produce: The Citizenship Amendment Acts (CAAs) of 1986 and 2004 on which the SIR is based, are placing great hurdles on eligible citizens to prove their citizenship by having to produce retrospective documents. None of the documents currently being sought also actually prove citizenship except a passport and a birth certificate issued before 1987. But studies have revealed that only 2.5 percent of Indians have passports and just 14.71 percent have matriculation certificates. Obtaining birth certificates was not mandatory until a few years ago.

Hence, it appears irrational to demand that a voter should produce these documents when the ECI’s own data, presented in court, shows that an estimated 93 crore Indians lack these documents and hence would not be able to produce them. The implicit result would be that a person will be declared a non-citizen ineligible to vote because s/he did not produce the documents asked for. And no one has been given a citizenshipcard since Independence to prove s/he is a citizen of India other than those who own a passport.

These amendments to the CAA and the SIR also raise deeper questions: A blog on ApniLaw website poses the following questions: “Should citizenship be inclusive and expansive, or restrictive and protective? Should humanitarian concerns outweigh fears of demographic change? And how should India balance its constitutional principles of equality with real-world political pressures?”

8. ECI asking for retrospective documents is the problem: Civil society organisations are claiming that the ECI has no right to demand the documents from citizens that SIR is demanding. They cite Section 19 of the RPA and say that anyone who is 18 years of age and who is ordinarily resident in a constituency should be automatically enrolled in the voter roll by the ERO.

But Section 19 of the RPA, on ‘Conditions of registration’, says: “Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part, every person who (a) is not less than [eighteen years] of age on the qualifying date, and (b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency, shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.] (Emphasis added). Civil society organisations are not mentioning this conditionality. The ‘foregoing provisions of this Part’ referenced in Section 19 are in Section 16. Section 16, on ‘Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll’ says, among others: (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he (a) is not a citizen of India …… . Hence, it is incumbent on the election officials to check whether or not a voter is a citizen of India before enrolling him as a voter. What needs to be opposed is that retrospective documents are being demanded which most of the citizens do not possess and not that ECI has no right to ask for documents.

That the SC has now directed that Aadhar should be accepted as an identity document indicates that the SC is convinced of the irrationality of asking for documents retrospectively from citizens. But the state continuing to demand retrospective evidence of citizenship, when it knows that at least 95 crore voters cannot provide

them, is totally questionable.

9. Need to amend the Indian Citizenship Act and make determination of citizenship a prospective and not retrospective exercise: The Hindu editorial of 8.1.2026 says that by “unleashing avoidable suffering and inconvenience upon Indian citizens under the garb of chasing the last foreigner, it (the ECI) is misreading the letter and ignoring thespirit of its constitutional duty”. This calls for thinking what the alternative should be. All the above lacunae and hurdles call for a fresh Amendment to the Citizenship Act to remove the provisions that are discriminatory, which are being used in the current SIR to identify supposed ‘Ghuspetiyaas’, or infiltrators, and deprive them of voting rights.

This proposed amendment will also need to remove the arbitrary and retrospective distinctions made between citizens who were born before 1987 and those born later than 1987, etc., through amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1987 and 2004. These conditionalities are being questioned as discriminatory and violative of Article 14, ‘Equality before law’.

Given the current circumstances when there is no satisfactory means of proving a voter’s citizenship retrospectively, and millions of citizens are getting excluded as a result, the need is to identify what should be the prospective exercise for ensuring that no genuine citizen gets excluded from the electoral roll or from citizenship.

It needs to be considered whether to fulfil the principle of universal suffrage and not disenfranchise even a single genuine citizen, a fresh Amendment to the Citizenship Act needs to be thought of in 2026, stating that all those who are currently resident in India, or have been residents of India prior to a specific cut-off date, say for two or three years, will be accorded citizenship in 2026 through naturalisation. This, unless they have been officially declared as foreigners or non-citizens under any statute.

10. Can Aadhaar itself be the criterion for citizenship? Once the above suggested amendment to the Citizenship Act is enabled, it needs to be considered whether Aadhaar itself can be made the identity of citizenship as well, as more than 90% of the residents have it already. This would eliminate the demands for retrospective documents, filling up of enumeration forms, etc. As per the Union government, ‘Live Aadhaars’ stood at 127.79 crore in 2022, which could be higher now in 2026. Out of around 9.51 crore who were yet to enrol for Aadhaar, 8.3 crore were children in the age group of 0-5 years who could be given an Aadhar and assimilated. This would leave just about 1.2 crore persons who would need to be given the Aadhaar and given

citizenship. This would reduce the chances of disenfranchisement of genuine citizens

to almost zero.

Those worried about their privacy due to making Aadhar their citizenship/voter ID can make use of the facility provided by UIDAI of obtaining a VirtuaI ID linked to their Aadhar. Lately, it is also possible to avoid biometric authentication of Aadhaar by usingthe Aadhaar QR Code scanner App for offline verification of Aadhaar identity details.

These two measures prevent misuse of Aadhaar.

Need to issue a citizenship ID card: Once the Citizenship Act is amended as suggested above and a continuously updated, accurate local database of citizens and residents with their addresses is established (as explained above) and the electoral roll derived from it, all those so enrolled as citizens could be given a ‘Citizenship ID card’ or ‘National ID Card’ under the Citizenship Act 1955. 

No one has been given a citizenship card since Independence to prove s/he is a citizen of India other than those who own a passport. Several other countries which have streamlined their systems to prevent such lack of clarity issue citizenship ID cards. German citizens aged 16 and over, for instance, are required by the ‘Act on Identity Cards’ to possess an official proof of identity, issued by the local “Residents’ Registration Office”. Questions are now being raised as to why India hasn’t created such a single, secure ID that proves citizenship, which will prevent citizens having to prove their citizenship continually, for instance, each time a revision of the electoral roll is announced.

Hoping these suggestions will be endorsed by citizens and citizens’ movements for bringing in accuracy in the electoral rolls; for protecting the right of genuine citizens to have the right to vote; for the integrity of the electoral system; and for respecting the humanitarian tradition of India.

Kathyayini Chamaraj

Executive Trustee

9731817177