Citizenship Question in Bihar SIR: Supreme Court Seeks Clarity from Election Commission
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court is currently examining a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) June 24 notification directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The petitions were filed in 2025 and raise serious constitutional and statutory questions concerning voter deletion, citizenship determination, and the scope of the Election Commission’s powers.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which sought to ascertain the true intent behind the SIR exercise.
Supreme Court’s Core Question: Citizenship or Electoral Hygiene?
During the hearing, the Supreme Court posed a pointed question to the ECI:
“When you started this exercise, was citizenship in your mind or are you second-guessing it as a reason to begin this exercise?”
The Court noted that the SIR notification primarily cited migration, urbanisation, and the need to update electoral entries as the reasons for the exercise. However, arguments advanced later by the ECI appeared to introduce citizenship scrutiny as a justification, prompting judicial concern over shifting grounds.
Election Commission’s Defence
No SIR in Bihar Since 2003
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, submitted that:
Bihar had not undergone a Special Intensive Revision since 2003
Over the past two decades, only summary revisions were conducted
These revisions relied on self-declaration of citizenship without intrusive verification
According to ECI, rapid demographic changes, large-scale urbanisation, and migration justified a fresh intensive revision.
Supreme Court Flags Ambiguity in “Migration” Argument
The bench questioned the legal clarity of the ECI’s reliance on migration:
Inter-state migration is a constitutional right
The SIR notification does not distinguish between:
Lawful internal migration, and
Illegal trans-border migration
The Court observed that if the objective was to identify illegal immigrants, the notification failed to explicitly say so. Without such clarity, the broader and more serious issue of citizenship determination could not be casually inferred.
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003: A New Trigger?
The ECI referred to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, enacted after the last SIR, which introduced:
Stricter citizenship verification
Proof relating to parents’ citizenship
Creation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) framework under Section 14A
The Supreme Court directly asked whether this legislative change triggered the present SIR.
The ECI responded that although the law existed earlier, it had never been operationalised, and the current SIR provided an opportunity to align electoral rolls with the updated legal regime.
Objections Raised by Petitioners
Petitions filed by organisations such as:
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
alleged that:
The SIR resulted in mass deletion of voters
The process lacked transparency
Citizenship scrutiny was being introduced indirectly through electoral revision
ECI’s Counter: No Individual Grievances
The ECI emphasised that:
66 lakh names were deleted during the Bihar SIR
None of the affected individuals approached:
The Supreme Court
The High Court
The Election Commission
The ECI argued that courts should not permit a “roving and fishing enquiry” at the behest of NGOs and political actors without individual aggrievement.
Supreme Court’s Balanced Observation
While the Court acknowledged that the ECI had a prima facie case, it clarified that the judicial inquiry was limited:
“All that we are trying to ascertain is what was there in the mind of the Commission while seeking SIR.”
The bench stressed that intent and statutory justification matter when constitutional rights are implicated.
Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 324 – Superintendence, direction and control of elections vested in ECI
Article 326 – Adult suffrage
Article 19(1)(d) – Right to move freely throughout India (inter-state migration)
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty (includes right to vote as statutory but protected from arbitrariness)
Statutes
Representation of the People Act, 1950
Sections 21–23: Preparation and revision of electoral rolls
Citizenship Act, 1955
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003
Section 14A: NRC framework
Key Judicial Precedents
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) – Electoral processes must be transparent and non-arbitrary
PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – Voters’ rights form part of democratic participation
Assam NRC cases (2018–2019) – Citizenship determination requires strict procedural safeguards
These cases underline that citizenship determination cannot be incidental or implied through administrative exercises like electoral revision.
Why This Case Matters
At its core, the case raises a fundamental question:
Can electoral roll revision be used as a backdoor mechanism for citizenship verification?
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny suggests that while the ECI has wide powers under Article 324, those powers are not unbounded and must operate within clear statutory and constitutional limits.
What Lies Ahead
The matter has been posted for further hearing on January 28.
The Court is expected to examine:
The legality of voter deletions
The limits of ECI’s discretion
Whether citizenship scrutiny requires explicit legislative or executive backing
Conclusion
The Bihar SIR case sits at the intersection of election law, citizenship law, and constitutional freedoms. The Supreme Court’s insistence on clarity of purpose signals judicial caution against conflating electoral administration with nationality determination.
How this balance is ultimately drawn will have significant implications not just for Bihar, but for electoral governance across India.

Comments
Post a Comment