Nov 12 – Editorial analysis – PM IAS

1. The Infirmities in Electoral Rolls: A Case for Comprehensive Review (GS-II: Polity & Governance)

UPSC Relevance	Keywords	Context
GS-II: Polity and Governance (Representation of People’s Act; Election Commission; Supreme Court judgments)	Electoral Rolls, Systematic Errors, Judicial Precedent, Democratic Deficit, SIR (Systematic Improvement of Rolls)	Editorial discusses systemic flaws in voter registration/revision processes in the backdrop of a Supreme Court observation or a specific election cycle.

Introduction

The integrity of the electoral roll is the foundation of a robust representative democracy. A recent editorial highlights the structural infirmities and systematic errors plaguing the electoral rolls, often exacerbated by hurried revision exercises. It emphasizes that faulty rolls do not merely disenfranchise individuals but inflict a democratic deficit that compromises the legitimacy of the entire electoral process. This analysis explores the procedural flaws, judicial precedents, and necessary institutional reforms to ensure the reliability of the voter list.

Procedural Flaws and Exclusionary Impact

The article argues that the issues extend beyond simple administrative errors:

1. Faulty De-duplication and Deletion: Processes like door-to-door verification and deletion of deceased/shifted voters often suffer from non-compliance with the Principle of Natural Justice. Names are frequently deleted ex parte (without informing the elector), leading to wrongful exclusion, particularly of vulnerable populations like migrants and marginalized communities.
2. Inadequate Technology Integration: While technology is deployed for de-duplication (e.g., matching photos or biometrics), the lack of a standardized, integrated national database and the dependence on fallible human verification at the final stage introduce significant systematic bias and error.
3. The Case of Multiple Entries: The existence of multiple entries for the same person across different constituencies inflates the total electorate, distorting voter turnout percentages and undermining the accuracy of demographic data essential for policy planning.

Judicial Precedent and Institutional Responsibility

The Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, provided crucial guidance that the Election Commission (ECI) must adhere to:

1. Lal Babu Hussein Case (1995): This landmark judgment mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards before any voter’s name is deleted. The Court emphasized that deletion must be preceded by a statutory notice and a reasonable opportunity for the voter to be heard, ensuring the right to vote is protected.
2. The ECI’s Dual Role: The ECI has a constitutional mandate under Article 324 to superintend the preparation of rolls. The editorial suggests that the EC must move beyond simply revising the rolls to undertaking a comprehensive audit and quality check, viewing the electoral roll not just as an administrative list but as a fundamental constitutional document.
3. Systematic Improvement of Rolls (SIR): Any EC-led process aimed at improving the rolls must be transparent, consultative, and accountable, with mechanisms for public scrutiny and timely redressal of grievances, ensuring that technical efficiency does not compromise democratic fairness.

The Way Forward: Institutional and Legislative Reforms

To overcome these infirmities, a multi-pronged approach is necessary:

• Mandatory Hearing: Strictly enforce the rule that no name can be deleted without issuing a personal, physical notice and conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, especially in cases of high volume deletions.
• Aadhaar Linkage with Caution: While linking electoral data with Aadhaar can aid de-duplication, it must be voluntary and protected by law to prevent blanket exclusions or infringement on privacy rights, as cautioned by various judicial pronouncements.
• Tripartite Funding Model: Advocate for a tripartite funding model (Centre-State-ECI) to ensure adequate, non-lapsable funds for year-round, high-quality, continuous revision work, reducing dependence on periodic, rushed campaigns.
• Enhanced Public Grievance: Modernize the electoral roll management system with AI/ML-based error detection and a user-friendly, digital grievance redressal mechanism that operates in all local languages.

Conclusion

A flawed electoral roll is a quiet assault on democracy. The editorial stresses that the ECI’s primary mandate is the purity of the election process, which begins with the sanctity of the voter list. Upholding judicial precedents and committing to comprehensive, year-round auditing, rather than just periodic campaigns, is the essential step towards realizing the constitutional goal of free, fair, and inclusive elections.

---

2. Protecting the Gig Economy Worker: Gaps in the Code on Wages (GS-III: Economy & Social Justice)

UPSC Relevance	Keywords	Context
GS-III: Economy, Social Justice (Gig Economy; Labour Codes; Social Security; Wage Protections)	Gig Worker, Platform Worker, Code on Wages, Collective Bargaining, Algorithmic Control, Social Security	Editorial critiques the inadequate coverage and absence of core labor rights for gig/platform workers under India’s new Labour Codes.

Introduction

The rise of the gig and platform economy has fundamentally reshaped India’s labor market, with over 12 million workers engaged in this sector. However, the recent editorial highlights a critical oversight in the Code on Wages, 2019, and the broader Social Security Code, 2020—the failure to grant gig and platform workers the fundamental rights of minimum wage, collective bargaining, and assured social security. This exclusion subjects a massive workforce to precarious employment conditions, masked by the rhetoric of “flexibility.”

Legal Ambiguity and Exploitation

The core problem lies in the deliberate ambiguity of classifying gig and platform workers:

1. Exclusion from ‘Employee’ Status: The Labour Codes define ’employee’ too narrowly, excluding these workers who are treated as ‘independent contractors’. This prevents them from accessing basic protections under the Code on Wages, such as minimum wages, overtime pay, and fixed working hours. The editorial argues this legal definition allows platforms to shirk responsibilities while maintaining algorithmic control over work processes and pricing.
2. Social Security as an Illusion: While the Social Security Code, 2020, acknowledges gig workers, it merely offers them a non-contributory welfare scheme, rather than mandatory, employer-backed social security (like PF, gratuity, etc.). This model places the burden of contribution largely on the state or the workers themselves, undermining the principle of shared responsibility.
3. Wage Code Gaps: Despite the Code on Wages guaranteeing a national floor wage, gig workers are currently not mandatorily entitled to it. Their earnings are determined by dynamic market factors and platform algorithms, often falling below subsistence levels when operational costs (fuel, maintenance) are accounted for.

Absence of Collective Bargaining Rights

A particularly grievous oversight is the failure to extend the right to collective bargaining to gig workers:

• Union Protection Missing: The editorial notes that without the right to form and register unions with statutory protection, workers are forced to negotiate individually with monopolistic platforms. This power imbalance ensures that platform algorithms, which manage pricing and assignments, always prevail, deepening algorithmic inequality.
• International Precedents: Nations like Spain have recognized that platforms exercise decisive control and have, through legal mandates, reclassified gig workers as employees, guaranteeing them collective rights. India’s Codes lag far behind in adopting such progressive and necessary classification.

Path Forward: Reframing the Regulatory Model

The editorial suggests a re-evaluation of the approach to ensure a more equitable and sustainable gig economy:

• A Dedicated Code: Instead of piecemeal adjustments, a dedicated, comprehensive Gig and Platform Workers Code is needed to grant minimum mandatory social security, transparent grievance redressal, and, crucially, the right to form and register trade unions.
• Ethics Audits: Mandate regular, independent ethics audits of platform algorithms to ensure that they do not systematically discriminate or suppress earnings below the national minimum wage threshold.
• Tripartite Funding for Security: Revisit the Social Security Code to institute a tripartite funding mechanism where the platform employer contributes a mandatory, significant percentage, alongside the worker and the state, towards the social security fund.
• Portable Benefits: Focus on designing a universal, technology-backed system for portable social benefits (healthcare, insurance) that workers can carry across different platforms and states, addressing the transient nature of their work.

Conclusion

The “flexibility” promised by the gig economy must not come at the cost of labor dignity and security. The Code on Wages and the Social Security Code, in their current form, offer only nominal recognition without substantive rights. Real reform requires legislative courage to reclassify gig work and ensure that the economic engine of digital India is built on fair wages and foundational social protection.