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

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

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

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

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny