Election Commission Tells Supreme Court It Can Scrutinise Citizenship for Voter Rolls

What happened: The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court it has the authority to examine citizenship status for electoral purposes during voter roll revisions.

Why it matters now: The argument comes amid legal challenges to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in multiple states, including Bihar.

What changes for people: An adverse finding can lead to removal from the voter list, not deportation, while citizenship questions may be sent to the Centre for further review.

Who is affected: Voters under scrutiny during roll revisions, election officials, and governments overseeing citizenship enforcement.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it is empowered to examine citizenship questions strictly for electoral purposes and exclude ineligible names from voter lists, arguing this responsibility flows directly from the Constitution and election laws.

The submission was made during final hearings on petitions challenging the ECI’s decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in several states. Petitioners have alleged the exercise resembles a parallel citizenship determination similar to the NRC, a claim the poll body firmly rejected.

What the Election Commission told the court

Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi told a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the Commission acts as the original authority in matters relating to electoral rolls and conduct of elections.

He argued that if a person is found to have acquired or is suspected of holding foreign citizenship, the ECI can examine the issue solely to decide whether that person is eligible to remain on the voter list.

“The consequence is limited to exclusion from the electoral roll,” he submitted, stressing that such a finding does not automatically trigger deportation.

Dwivedi clarified that in appropriate cases, the matter may be referred to the central government for action under the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Foreigners Act, and related laws.

Legal basis cited by the poll body

The ECI relied on provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, highlighting sections that empower electoral authorities to hold inquiries and exercise civil court–like powers while deciding questions related to voter registration.

According to the Commission, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), working under its supervision, is legally competent to conduct a limited inquisitorial inquiry to ensure only eligible citizens are enrolled.

Dwivedi also pointed out that citizenship checks are common across regulatory frameworks, noting that sectors such as mining leases and statutory benefits routinely require authorities to verify citizenship status.

Supreme Court raises concern on voting rights

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether a person’s right to vote could be suspended while a citizenship issue is still pending before the Union government.

Responding to the concern, the ECI maintained that any restriction would apply only for electoral eligibility, and not affect a person’s right to stay in India or face deportation, which remains the government’s domain.

Justice Bagchi also reflected on the evolution of India’s citizenship laws, noting how eligibility criteria have narrowed over time. Dwivedi responded by tracing constitutional history, citing Article 5 and debates from January 1949, arguing that citizenship provisions must be understood in their historical context.

Why the SIR exercise is under challenge

Petitioners opposing the SIR exercise argue that voter roll revisions risk becoming a backdoor citizenship screening, potentially disenfranchising lawful voters. The ECI countered this by stressing that Article 326 of the Constitution permits only citizens to vote, making it the Commission’s constitutional obligation to exclude foreigners from electoral rolls.

“Even a small number of ineligible names cannot be ignored,” the poll body argued, calling the exercise a matter of constitutional duty rather than political discretion.

Broader implications

The case carries significant implications for governance and electoral integrity, especially ahead of upcoming elections. It also raises critical questions about the balance between voting rights and citizenship verification, an issue with nationwide relevance.

For voters, the outcome could determine how aggressively electoral authorities scrutinise documentation during roll revisions. For governments, it may clarify institutional boundaries between election management and citizenship enforcement.