Supreme Court on ECI’s Powers During Voter Roll Revision: Citizenship Determination vs. Electoral Integrity

The Supreme Court’s latest observations during the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar raise important constitutional and statutory questions. The core issue is whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) can inquire into "doubtful citizenship" while revising electoral rolls, without assuming the authority to declare someone a citizen or non-citizen.


Issue 1: Court Clarifies ECI Is Not Claiming Power to Determine Citizenship

The Supreme Court clarified that the ECI has not claimed any constitutional authority to decide citizenship.
The bench noted: ECI’s question is not about declaring someone a citizen or non-citizen, but about whether it can conduct inquisitorial inquiries into doubtful entries during voter roll revision.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked:
If an electoral roll has doubtful inclusions, would it not fall within ECI’s constitutional mandate to investigate?

This sets the stage for examining the legal basis of such inquiries.


Issue 2: Petitioner’s Argument – Citizenship Determination Is a Statutory Process

Appearing for petitioner Yogendra Yadav, senior advocate Shadan Farasat argued:

  1. Article 326 states that a person must be
    (a) a citizen of India, and
    (b) above 18 years of age
    to be registered as a voter.

  2. While the ECI may conduct an inquiry, the authority to decide citizenship lies exclusively with:

    • The Central Government

    • Foreigners Tribunals (under the Foreigners Act, 1946)

  3. Farasat emphasized that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA 1950) provides the statutory foundation for electoral rolls:

    • Section 16: Disqualifications for registration

    • Section 19: Eligibility based on age and ordinary residence

He argued that once a person meets the Section 19 threshold, a presumption of citizenship operates until a competent authority finds otherwise.


Issue 3: Supreme Court Questions the Presumption of Citizenship Standard

The bench disagreed with the idea that residence and age alone create a presumption of citizenship.

The Court offered an illustration:
An illegal migrant living in India for 10 years cannot claim automatic citizenship simply due to residence and age.

The Court held that:

  • ECI is empowered to examine documents related to voter eligibility.

  • ECI can doubt an entry and refer the matter to a foreigner tribunal if needed.

  • This doubt does not amount to determining citizenship but allows ECI to maintain the integrity of electoral rolls.

This creates a nuanced distinction:
Inquiry is permissible; determination is not.


Issue 4: Petitioners Alleging Lack of Transparency and Procedural Violations

Multiple senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Prashanto Chandra Sen, and others raised procedural concerns about the SIR in Bihar.

Key objections included:

  • The June 24 notification did not classify SIR as an “inquisitorial” citizenship inquiry.

  • ECI failed to disclose reasons for deletions.

  • SIR allegedly violated ECI’s own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

  • Suo motu deletions in an election year undermined voter rights.

  • No record of any “independent appraisal” justifying nationwide SIR.

Advocates argued for summoning internal ECI documents similar to the Supreme Court’s approach in the demonetisation case.


Issue 5: Parallel Challenges in Kerala and Tamil Nadu

The Court also addressed related petitions concerning SIR exercises in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Key developments:

  • ECI extended the deadline for enumeration forms in Kerala to December 18 due to local body polls.

  • Requests for extension in Tamil Nadu hilly regions were also examined.

  • The bench criticized ECI’s “mechanical answers,” urging contextual responses instead of relying on statistics such as 99.27% digitisation.

The matter will now be heard further on Thursday.


Statutory Provisions Relevant to the Case

1. Representation of the People Act, 1950

  • Section 15–23: Preparation and revision of electoral rolls

  • Section 16: Disqualifications for registration

  • Section 19: Basic conditions (age + ordinary residence)

  • Section 21: Powers of ECI and authorities during revision
    These sections frame the legal authority for SIR exercises.

2. Constitution of India

  • Article 324: Broad supervisory powers of ECI over elections

  • Article 326: Voting rights based on citizenship and age

  • Article 14: Mandates non-arbitrariness in state action

  • Article 21: Protects procedural fairness
    These provisions determine whether ECI’s conduct aligns with constitutional mandates.

3. Citizenship Act, 1955

Determination of citizenship is governed strictly under this Act.

4. Foreigners Act, 1946 & Foreigners (Tribunal) Order

Foreigners Tribunals have exclusive legal authority to determine citizenship status in disputed cases.


Relevant Judicial Precedents

1. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)

Held that Article 324 gives ECI wide powers to ensure free and fair elections.

2. Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (1985)

ECI has supervisory control over electoral roll preparation and revision.

3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)

Affirmed the centrality of electoral transparency.

4. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005)

Clarified the jurisdiction of Foreigners Tribunals on citizenship determination.

These precedents shape the Court’s understanding that while ECI cannot decide citizenship, it must ensure electoral purity.


Conclusion: A Critical Constitutional Debate on ECI’s Powers

The Supreme Court’s ongoing scrutiny raises profound questions about the balance between:

  • protecting voter rights,

  • preventing wrongful deletions, and

  • maintaining electoral integrity.

The Court has clearly drawn the line between:

  • ECI’s power to inquire, and

  • ECI’s lack of power to determine citizenship.

As the matter is ongoing, the next hearing will further define the constitutional limits of ECI’s investigative role during nationwide voter roll revisions.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse