What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: ​​India’s democracy is failing the migrant citizen

Context

A migrant’s economic role in host States and political identity in home States is being demonised by the state.

Introduction

In a democracy of 1.4 billion, every vote matters. Yet for millions of migrants from Bihar, democracy is slowly leaving them behind. A silent crisis is unfolding as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, carried out at short notice, has led to the mass deletion of nearly 3.5 million names — about 4.4% of total voters. These are the very migrants who were marked as “permanently migrated” simply because they were absent during house-to-house verification. As a result, they now face the threat of permanent disenfranchisement, losing their right to vote not only in their places of work but also in their native villages.

Migration as Survival, Democracy at Risk

• Migration as Survival:In some States, migration is not just an economic choice but a survival strategy.
• Administrative Threat:Sweeping administrative actions now risk erasing millions from India’s democratic record.
• Economic Backbone:For decades, out-migration has supported Bihar’s economy and sustained households.
• Locked Homes:Across villages, locked houses of poor and vulnerable migrants are a common sight.
• Family Migration:Increasingly, migrants migrate with families or shift them to marital homes for care and safety.
• Misreading by State:This reality of circular and split-family migration is now interpreted by the state as abandonment of electoral rights.

The ‘sedentary citizen’ is the issue

• Electoral Infrastructure:India’s system is still designed for a sedentary citizen, relying on proof of residenceand in-person verification.
• Migrant Barriers:Migrant workers living in rented rooms, construction sites, footpaths, or slums often lack or are denied necessary documentation.
• Exclusion and Identity:The problem deepens with regionalism and sub-nationalism, where migrants are portrayed as job-stealers or political threats.
• Political Resistance:Demands for job quotas in the private sector and domicile-based rules for government jobs reflect wider political sentiments that block migrant inclusion.
• Outsider Tag:In many host States, migrants are seen as outsiders, and fears of altered electoral outcomesdiscourage their enfranchisement.
• Registration Gap:Migrants face a double loss — unable to register in destination States, while also being removed from origin rolls.

The findings of a study

• Study on Migrants (2015):A TISS Mumbai study (funded by the Election Commission of India) confirmed the marginalisation of migrants in host State electoral processes. It identified a triple burden: administrative barriers, digital illiteracy, and social exclusion, limiting migrant voter participation.
• Turnout Gap:The study showed lower voter turnout is directly linked to high migration rates in source States. Instead of bridging this gap, Bihar’s SIR initiative is widening the democratic deficit.
• Democratic Rupture:Bihar recorded an average turnout of 53.2% in the last four Assembly elections, the lowest among major States. In contrast, Gujarat (66.4%) and Karnataka (70.7%) reported much higher turnout rates due to fewer migrants.
• Scale of Migration:Estimates from mobile visitor location data show 7 million circular migrants leave Bihar annually, with 8 million seasonal migrants moving between June–September. About 2.7 million return during festivals like Durga Puja, Chhath, and Deepavali, but many still lose voting rights due to name deletions.
• Disenfranchisement:Without coordination with destination States for verification or re-enrolment, the deletion process effectively becomes disenfranchisement of poor migrants.
• One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC):Since its launch in 2019, uptake has been limited. Only 3 lakh Bihar households avail portability in host States (as of May 2025). Dual residency, fear of losing entitlements, and bureaucratic hurdles restrict transfers — a similar problem faced with voter IDs.
• Dual Belonging:Migrants maintain economic participation in host States but political identity in home States. However, they are now being told, “if you’re not home when we knock, your vote vanishes.”
• Border Complexity:Along the 1,751 km India-Nepal border, the issue is further complicated by the “roti-beti ka rishta” tradition of cross-border ties. New documentation norms and restrictive citizenship rules threaten the legal and electoral status of Nepali and Indian women, making disenfranchisement regional, class-based, gendered, and xenophobic.

Conclusion

The way forward is simple. India must move toward a portable, flexible, and mobile voter identity system. The Election Commission of India should stop blanket deletions of migrant names and instead use a cross-verification model with the destination State voter rolls. Civil society and local governance bodies like panchayats must be given the power to conduct migrant outreach and re-registration drives. It is high time the Kerala model of migration surveys is followed in major migration origin States such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Without these steps, India risks facing the largest silent voter purge in post-Independence history — not of enemies, but of the hard-working poor who leave their homes in search of bread, dignity, and work.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Punishing process

Context

Affirming gender identity must go beyond procedural red tape.

Introduction

The Manipur High Court’s ruling in favour of Beoncy Laishram is more than a personal victory; it is a reminder of the gaps between law and practice in transgender rights. While the NALSA judgment and the 2019 Act safeguard the right to self-identification, bureaucratic inertia and rigid procedures continue to deny transpersons their constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.

Individual Justice and Larger Commentary

• The Manipur High Court’s directive to issue fresh academic certificates to Beoncy Laishramrepresents both an individual’s struggle for justice and a broader reflection on transgender rights in India.
• What should have been a simple administrative correctionbecame a prolonged legal battle, not due to lack of law but because of bureaucratic rigidity and inertia.

Legal Provisions and Constitutional Safeguards

• In NALSA vs Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify genderand directed states to treat transpersons as socially and educationally backward, making them eligible for welfare measures.
• The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019codified this principle, mandating authorities to recognise self-identified gender and issue official documents accordingly.
• Together with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, transpersons have a constitutional right to have their affirmed identity recognised seamlesslyin institutional records.

Gap Between Law and Implementation

• Despite clear legal provisions, bureaucratic setups resist actionunless compelled by higher authorities.
• In Dr. Laishram’s case, her university refused to update recordsciting procedural hurdles — reflecting a systemic malaise in administrative attitudes.
• Officials often cling to the binary markers assigned at birth, undermining the principle of self-determination of gender.
• The insistence on sequential correctionsor unnecessary justifications exposes a rigid procedural mindset rather than a rights-based approach.

Impact on Transpersons

• Such institutional reluctanceforces transpersons into lengthy legal battles over what should be routine administrative matters.
• It reveals a troubling reality: transpersons, already facing stigma and discrimination, must spend disproportionate time and resourcesto claim rights that are legally guaranteed.

Positive Precedent and Way Forward

• The High Court judgmentin Dr. Laishram’s case is a positive step and sets a legal precedent for other transpersons.
• It signals to administrators that procedural rigidity cannot override constitutional rights.
• To bridge the gap between law and lived reality, there is a need for:
  • Institutional reformwithin bureaucratic processes.
  • Cultural changein administrative attitudes, rooted in an understanding of gender as lived experience rather than paperwork.

Conclusion

Dr. Laishram’s case highlights how procedural rigidity undermines justice and forces transpersons into prolonged legal battles for rights already enshrined in law. The High Court’s precedent is a step forward, but real change demands institutional reform, cultural sensitivity, and recognition of gender as lived reality. Bridging this law-implementation gap is vital to ensure inclusion, dignity, and equality for all citizens.