Content

1. Punishing process
2. 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.