Who bears the burden of proving citizenship during electoral roll revision? Assess the implications for first-time and migrant voters.

Article 326 gives the vote to adult citizens, and Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950 keeps non-citizens off the roll [2]. In law the State decides eligibility. In practice, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has moved the burden of proof onto the voter.

Who bears the burden

• Statutory design: the applicant declares eligibility in Form 6. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) checks the conditions of age and ordinary residence (s.19) [2].
• SIR practice: the applicant must link to the 2002 SIR roll through their own or their parents' entry. Otherwise they must produce one of 12 listed documents [1].
• Judicial check: the Supreme Court upheld the SIR under Art. 324 and s.21(3). It also held that removal from the roll is not a finding of non-citizenship [3]. It ordered that Aadhaar be accepted as the 12th document, as proof of identity but not of citizenship [4].
• Rationale: roll purity, and one standard for every elector in the same revision [3].

Implications for first-time voters

• Retrospective rejection: in Telangana, 1,92,574 of 5,20,331 pre-SIR Form 6 applications (37%) were rejected for lacking the SIR declaration. These forms were filed before that rule existed, which The Hindu reported as "shifting goal posts" [1].
• Paperwork, not ineligibility: youth born after 2002 depend on their parents' records. A missing form keeps a probably eligible citizen off the roll.
• Opaque data: rejections are not broken down by reason, age or gender [1], so the harm to young voters cannot be measured.

Implications for migrant voters

• Tracing problem: inter-state migrants and women who moved after marriage rarely appear in the 2002 roll of the constituency where they now live. Yet "ordinary residence" means they must enrol there [2].
• Absence and documents: seasonal migrants miss house-to-house checks, and their documents often stay in their home village.
• Safeguards exist but vary: in Bihar, no name could be deleted without a notice and a speaking order. Appeals lay under s.24, and claims could be filed on Form 6 with Aadhaar [5].

The burden has shifted from the State to the citizen, and it falls hardest on the young and the mobile. The fix is to give applicants notice and a chance to correct defects before rejection, accept Aadhaar-backed claims, publish reasons for rejection, and have the Supreme Court settle the Form 6 question. These steps would let roll purity coexist with Article 326's promise of universal adult suffrage.