The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday appeared before the Supreme Court to clarify its authority to verify citizenship as part of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, asserting that its power is limited strictly to ensuring the accuracy of voter registration and does not extend to matters of deportation or the revocation of citizenship. The matter was heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, amid a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise.

The SIR, being conducted in phases across India, aims to update electoral rolls by removing individuals who are deceased, have migrated, or are otherwise ineligible to vote. Petitioners in the case have argued that the ECI’s role in determining citizenship is outside its jurisdiction, contending that the authority to determine citizenship rests solely with the Union government under the Citizenship Act of 1955. Critics also raised concerns that the exercise could potentially be used to disenfranchise eligible voters.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, clarified before the court that the commission’s role is confined to assessing whether a person is eligible to be registered in the voter list. “The ECI is vested with the purpose of verifying if a person is a citizen only for the purpose of the electoral roll. It is not that the decision of the ECI will lead to deportation. The only result will be that they will not be eligible to be registered on the roll,” Dwivedi submitted.

He further explained that this power derives from Article 326 of the Constitution, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies based on adult suffrage. A fundamental requirement for voters under this framework is that they must be citizens of India, alongside meeting other criteria such as being at least 18 years old. Dwivedi emphasized that the ECI’s scrutiny of citizenship for electoral purposes does not impinge upon the Union government’s authority to grant or revoke citizenship, which is codified under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Dwivedi traced the legal basis for the ECI’s power back to the Constituent Assembly debates of 1949, pointing out that it was resolved that only citizens of India could be included in electoral rolls. He noted, “Parliamentary law has to be understood in the context of the Constitution of India. We are entitled to look into citizenship and we don’t have to await a decision, one way or the other, by the Centre.”

The bench probed the implications of this position, with Chief Justice Surya Kant noting, “So according to you, even prior to a decision by the Centre stripping a person of the colour of citizenship, you can strike him off the electoral roll. Non-citizens are not entitled to vote, according to you.” The court’s observation highlighted the fine balance between the ECI’s duty to maintain accurate voter lists and the legal principle that citizenship itself is a constitutional matter governed by the Union government.

The ECI argued that the Special Intensive Revision is fundamentally different from the process of determining citizenship under the Citizenship Act. Section 9 of the Act, Dwivedi explained, applies to situations where a person voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship, resulting in the termination of Indian citizenship. “Section 9 of the Citizenship Act has no application to the SIR exercise,” Dwivedi stated. He reiterated that the ECI’s role is confined to preventing ineligible individuals from registering to vote and ensuring the integrity of electoral rolls, not adjudicating on the broader question of citizenship or initiating deportation proceedings.

The poll panel also cited Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution, along with Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as the legal foundation for its actions. Article 324 empowers the ECI to conduct free and fair elections and to maintain accurate electoral rolls. Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act allows the commission to disqualify individuals from registration in electoral rolls on specified grounds, including citizenship. Dwivedi emphasized that the commission’s responsibilities are therefore constitutionally sanctioned and legally distinct from the executive functions of the Centre.

The ECI further noted that multiple constitutional provisions already vest the authority to evaluate citizenship in other bodies for specific purposes. Articles 102 and 103 empower the President of India to determine the disqualification of members of Parliament after consulting the ECI. Similarly, Articles 191 and 192 confer comparable powers on state governors concerning members of the legislative assembly. Dwivedi’s submissions highlighted that the Constitution allows for context-specific determination of citizenship or eligibility for public office while maintaining the central government’s exclusive role in formal citizenship matters.

The Supreme Court, while not making any immediate pronouncement, posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday, signaling the importance and complexity of the issues raised. The bench will examine the legal boundaries of the ECI’s powers, the interplay with the Citizenship Act, and the broader constitutional principles governing the exercise of adult suffrage in India.

The petitions challenging the SIR argue that the exercise, while framed as an administrative update of voter rolls, could have broader implications if used to target particular groups, potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. Petitioners maintain that decisions on citizenship, particularly in disputed cases, should lie exclusively with the Union government and not with the ECI, to ensure that electoral disqualifications do not overstep constitutional authority.

The SIR process, which has been conducted in phases, involves field verification, document checks, and cross-referencing with government records to identify voters who are no longer eligible. The ECI has maintained that this exercise is essential to maintain clean, accurate, and credible electoral rolls—a cornerstone of free and fair elections in a democratic system. Officials note that errors in voter lists, such as inclusion of deceased persons or duplicate entries, could undermine public confidence in electoral outcomes and affect the credibility of the democratic process.

Analysts observing the Supreme Court hearings note that the outcome of the case could have significant implications for India’s electoral system. It may clarify the precise limits of the ECI’s authority in scrutinizing voter eligibility and defining the interface between electoral administration and citizenship law. The court’s judgment is likely to address key constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers, federal authority, and the protection of individual rights in the context of electoral administration.

For now, the ECI maintains that its role is purely administrative and preventive, aimed at ensuring that only eligible citizens are registered to vote. The commission stresses that the process does not affect the legal status of citizenship and does not authorize deportation or removal from India. Dwivedi summarized the ECI’s position succinctly before the Supreme Court: “Our power is to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls. It is not a power to decide citizenship or affect civil rights beyond the voter list.”

As India prepares for upcoming elections, the Supreme Court’s examination of the SIR process underscores the delicate balance between maintaining accurate electoral rolls and respecting the constitutional authority of the Union government over citizenship. The hearings are being closely watched by political parties, legal experts, and civil society, given the potential implications for electoral rights, administrative governance, and constitutional interpretation in the world’s largest democracy.