NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether the Election Commission (EC) has the authority to determine the citizenship status of voters, noting that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The query arose during a hearing on opposition parties’ objections to the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which they alleged amounted to an unauthorized “citizenship screening exercise.” The Election Commission, however, denied this claim, asserting that citizenship is a fundamental criterion for voter eligibility.
When senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, defended the exclusion of Aadhaar as valid proof for inclusion in the electoral rolls—on grounds that it does not establish citizenship—a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi remarked, “But determining citizenship is not the EC's domain. That power lies with the home ministry.”
The court acknowledged that the EC has the right to conduct intensive revisions of the electoral rolls to ensure non-citizens are excluded. However, it cautioned against overstepping jurisdictional boundaries.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the Congress and other opposition parties, argued that the EC's actions effectively amounted to a citizenship verification drive. He emphasized that voters already on the electoral roll are presumed to be citizens, and that this presumption cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the poll panel.
Supporting this view, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, pointed out that citizenship questions must be resolved according to procedures outlined in the Citizenship Act. “How can someone who has voted in ten elections since 2003 suddenly be treated as a non-citizen without any concrete evidence?” he asked.
Both lawyers cited the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in the Lal Babu Hussein case, which laid down guidelines for handling suspected non-citizens on electoral rolls. The judgment emphasized due process and the right to a fair hearing.
According to that ruling, any person facing removal from the electoral roll must be informed of the grounds for suspicion and given a chance to respond. The inquiry, being quasi-judicial in nature, must allow the individual to present documents or other evidence, and access any material being used against them. The person must also be granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The bench has sought further clarification from the Centre, and the case will continue to be heard.
