Content
- Punishing process
- India’s democracy is failing the migrant citizen
Punishing process
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Articles 14, 19, 21: Guarantee equality, freedom of expression, and right to life with dignity — extend to transgender persons.
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014):
- Recognised the right to self-identify gender (male, female, or third gender).
- Directed governments to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes for affirmative action.
- Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019:
- Codifies right to self-perceived gender identity.
- Mandates issuance of official documents (ID, certificates) reflecting affirmed identity.
- Prohibits discrimination in education, healthcare, employment, etc.
Relevance : GS 2(, Social Justice , Polity , Constitution)
Practice Question : Examine how Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution have been interpreted by the judiciary to secure dignity and equality for transgender persons. Why does implementation continue to falter? (15M / 250 words)
The Case of Beoncy Laishram (Manipur HC)
- Issue: Refusal by university to update academic certificates after gender transition.
- Bureaucratic stance: Corrections must begin from earliest certificates → cascading procedural hurdles.
- Court ruling: Directed issuance of fresh certificates — recognising self-identification over paperwork inertia.
- Significance: Sets precedent, reinforces constitutional guarantees over administrative rigidity.
Problematic Bureaucratic Practices
- Rigid adherence to “assigned at birth” binary markers in records.
- Sequential approval chains: One certificate depends on correction of another, creating endless delays.
- Restrictive interpretation of procedure > spirit of law.
- Inaction unless compelled by court — showing institutional reluctance.
Lived Reality of Transgender Persons
- Despite legal clarity, implementation gap persists.
- Transpersons expend disproportionate time, money, and emotional energy to access routine entitlements.
- Continuous litigation burdens them with stigma and financial hardship.
- Bureaucracy enforces paperwork-based identity rather than recognising gender as lived reality.
Larger Implications
- Access to rights: Without seamless recognition in documents (education, jobs, healthcare), transpersons face systemic exclusion.
- Social justice: Bureaucratic rigidity compounds stigma already faced in society.
- Institutional message: By resisting change, institutions indirectly delegitimise transgender identities.
Positive Outcomes of the HC Judgment
- Reinforces judicial affirmation of self-identification.
- Signals to bureaucrats that procedural hurdles cannot override constitutional rights.
- Provides precedent for other transpersons facing similar struggles.
Way Forward
- Institutional reforms:
- Streamlined, single-window processes for certificate/document correction.
- Clear administrative guidelines implementing the 2019 Act.
- Cultural change in bureaucracy:
- Training, sensitisation programs for officials.
- Recognising gender identity as inherent and self-determined, not dependent on sequential documents.
- Digital systems: Ensure quick updates across linked databases (Aadhaar, academic boards, employment records).
- Monitoring & accountability: Independent grievance redressal mechanisms for transpersons.
India’s democracy is failing the migrant citizen
Basics: Why Voting Rights Matter
- Democracy’s foundation: Universal adult suffrage ensures representation for every citizen.
- Migrants & democracy: In a country with 1.4 billion people, migration is a survival strategy, but rigid electoral systems leave millions excluded.
- Present crisis in Bihar: Nearly 3.5 million voters (4.4% of Bihar’s electorate) deleted in Special Intensive Revision (SIR) for being “absent” during verification → permanent disenfranchisement.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity, Governance, Electoral Reforms )
Practice Question : Analyse the democratic implications of mass voter deletions under Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in light of circular and seasonal migration patterns. (15M / 250 words)
Nature of Migration in Bihar
- Structural reality: Bihar is one of India’s largest out-migration States; migration sustains household incomes.
- Circular & split-family migration:
- Families often migrate seasonally for work (construction, agriculture, urban informal sector).
- Migrants leave homes locked or shift dependents to marital homes.
- Data insights:
- Annual outflow: 7 million circular migrants.
- Seasonal migration (June–Sept): 4.8 million.
- Return migration (festivals Oct–Nov): 2.7 million.
- These returnees often find their names struck off rolls just when elections occur.
Why Migrants are Disenfranchised
- Sedentary citizen bias: Electoral rolls assume fixed residence → proof of residence + in-person verification required.
- Administrative presumption: Absence during verification = “permanent migration” → deletion.
- Dual belonging:
- Economic participation in host States.
- Political identity in home States.
- Misread as “abandonment” of electoral duty.
- Barrier at destinations: Migrants hesitate to register in host States due to:
- Lack of secure housing/rent agreements.
- Fear of losing ration and welfare entitlements at home.
- Bureaucratic hurdles and social exclusion.
Evidence of Migrant Marginalisation
- 2015 TISS Study (funded by ECI):
- Identified triple burden → administrative barriers, digital illiteracy, social exclusion.
- Found lower voter turnout directly correlated with higher migration rates.
- Bihar turnout comparison:
- Bihar’s average turnout (last 4 Assemblies): 53.2%.
- Gujarat: 66.4%, Karnataka: 70.7% → both have lower out-migration.
- Cross-border factor: At the India–Nepal open border (1,751 km), traditional marital ties (“roti-beti ka rishta”) face new risks → gendered & xenophobic disenfranchisement of women migrants.
Consequences of the Current Approach
- Silent voter purge: Millions deleted without due process or cross-verification.
- Democratic rupture: Electoral exclusion of poor, circular migrants → weakens democratic legitimacy.
- Gendered exclusion: Nepali-origin women married into Bihar face loss of both citizenship and voting rights.
- Rise of sub-nationalism: Migrants seen as “outsiders” or political threats in host States → curtails political inclusion further.
Larger Structural Problem
- Electoral infrastructure designed for sedentary citizens, not mobile workers.
- Mismatch: India’s economy relies heavily on labour mobility, but its political system penalises that mobility.
- Regionalism & politics: Domicile-based reservations and anti-migrant rhetoric reinforce exclusion.
Way Forward
- Portable, mobile voter identity:
- Like “One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC)”, extend portability to voter IDs.
- A national “migrant voter card” linked to Aadhaar or digital ID.
- Cross-verification system: Instead of blanket deletions, coordinate with destination State rolls.
- Kerala model: Migration surveys & databases → replicate in high-migration States (Bihar, UP).
- Civil society role: Panchayats and NGOs to assist migrant outreach and re-registration.
- ECI reforms: Halt mass deletions, simplify re-enrolment, create flexible verification for migrant workers.
Core Democratic Question
- India risks creating the largest silent disenfranchisement in its democratic history.
- This is not an exclusion of enemies but of the working poor who sustain India’s economy.
- Balancing mobility in economy with inclusivity in democracy is the central challenge.
