Context

• In Homer’s Odyssey, King Odysseus famously faced a perilous choice, navigate close to Scylla, the six-headed monster lurking in the rocks, or Charybdis, the deadly whirlpool.
• In today’s Indian democratic context, a similar dilemma confronts millions of migrant labourers whose names have been dropped from the draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
• For these citizens, exercising their fundamental right to vote has become a matter of navigating between legal definitions and political realities, each carrying risks of disenfranchisement.

The Legal Foundation: ‘Ordinarily Resident’

• The Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 governs the preparation of electoral rolls in India.
• Section 19 mandates that a person must be ordinarily resident in a constituency to be included in its roll, a requirement designed to ensure genuine ties to the constituency and prevent fraudulent registrations.
• Section 20 clarifies that mere ownership of property does not establish residency, while temporary absences do not negate it.
• In 2010, Section 20A extended voting rights to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) based on their passport address.
• The ECI, under SIR, has excluded individuals marked as permanently shifted/not found if they were absent during verification or failed to submit forms.
• This approach collides with the lived reality of migrant labourers, many of whom maintain strong familial and property ties to their native constituencies despite extended absences for work.
• Judicial interpretation, notably in the Gauhati High Court’s 1999 Election Commission of India vs Dr. Manmohan Singh defines ordinarily resident as a habitual, permanent association with a place, not a casual presence.
• For many migrants, this definition arguably still applies to their home constituencies.

Migrant Labour: The Scale of the Issue

• The Periodic Labour Force Survey (2020–21) estimated that about 11% of India’s population, roughly 15 crore individuals, are migrant workers.
• Driven by economic necessity, they often relocate alone, live in temporary accommodations, and move frequently within or across States.
• While their bodies may be at construction sites or security posts far from home, their political and social identities often remain anchored in their native constituencies, where families reside and property exists.

Legal Pathways vs Political Resistance

• Legally, migrants can register to vote in their current place of residence under the RP Act. However, the practical obstacles are significant.
• Many lack the required documentation for voter registration in their work locations.
• Even if these hurdles are overcome, regional political resistance often arises in in-migration States.
• Local parties fear that transient populations may distort electoral outcomes, arguing that migrants lack deep familiarity with local political issues.
• This tension creates a Catch-22: in their home constituencies, migrants risk being removed from rolls for prolonged absence; in their work constituencies, they face suspicion, documentation barriers, and political pushback.
• The result is a de facto disenfranchisement, despite having a de jure right to vote somewhere.

The Broader Democratic Context

• The problem is not unique to migrants. Urban voter apathy is well-documented, in many metropolitan areas, nearly half the electorate abstains despite living within a short walk of polling stations.
• Similarly, NRIs often cannot return home to vote despite having that right.
• These comparisons suggest that low participation among migrants is not grounds for excluding them but rather a challenge to be addressed through facilitation.

The Way Forward: Towards Inclusive Solutions

• Short-term measures could improve access for migrants without altering the fundamental legal framework.
• Strict enforcement of statutory holidays on polling day for all eligible workers.
• Expanded special transportation services, trains, buses, and subsidised travel options — enabling interstate or intrastate return for voting.
• Paid leave provisions for travel and participation in elections.
• The ECI’s 2023 pilot of a Multi-Constituency Remote Electronic Voting Machine (RVM), capable of handling up to 72 constituencies, hinted at a technological path forward.
• While concerns from political parties stalled the initiative, advances in secure, verifiable remote voting systems could eventually reconcile mobility with enfranchisement.
• Parliament could amend the RP Act to explicitly protect the right of migrant labourers to choose their place of voting, ensuring that legal interpretation aligns with economic and social realities.

Conclusion

• Like Odysseus steering between Scylla and Charybdis, migrant labourers in India are caught between legal definitions and political anxieties.
• The law theoretically offers them two safe harbours, their native constituency or their current place of work, yet the waves of bureaucracy and the rocks of political resistance often leave them stranded.
• Preserving their franchise is not just a matter of technical eligibility but a commitment to the constitutional promise of equal citizenship.
• The challenge is to chart a course that avoids both disenfranchisement and political manipulation, a passage narrow, but navigable with will and innovation.