ECI और सुप्रीम कोर्ट: SIR में नागरिकता घोषणा की वैधता

The Law Is on ECI’s Side

Since the conclusion of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in 30 states that led to the elimination of 13 crore names from electoral rolls, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar has been in the spotlight. His critics include retired judges, leaders from opposition parties, assorted NGOs, and even former election commissioners.

Their verdict is almost unanimous: India’s democracy is in danger and the right to participate in the most vital political process—voting—is threatened because the Election Commission of India (ECI) has become a handmaiden of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Allegations do not form the substance of law. The ECI is empowered by the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 and key constitutional provisions to maintain the sanctity of the electoral rolls. The SIR exercise, distinct from the usual summary revisions before polls, usually takes place once in a decade. For example, before the 2025 SIR in Bihar, the last such revision there was in 2003, more than 20 years earlier.

These exercises are now contentious as the opposition feels the ECI will strike off some voters from the rolls. It is another matter that the ECI has no such political data and has a well-earned reputation for fairness in conducting elections. The SIR process in 2025 was challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld its validity and the right of the ECI to conduct an SIR.

The current controversy revolves round the declaration attached to Form 6. Form 6 is used to enroll new voters based on the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The declaration asks the applicant, among other things, to state that he or she is a citizen of India. If the declaration is found to be false, the applicant can be punished under law.

This unexceptionable declaration is now alleged by opposition parties to be behind the row to “steal elections”. The ECI says the declaration was approved by the Supreme Court in its judgment of May 27, 2026 (Association for Democratic Rights vs Election Commission of India and others) and is meant for the period when SIR is being conducted. During non-SIR periods, a normal Form 6—without the declaration—is used.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court noted: “The Commission, therefore, retains a degree of residual authority to formulate an appropriate documentation framework suited to the exigencies of a Special Intensive Revision.” This allows the ECI to do what is necessary to correct the electoral rolls. At the same time, the Supreme Court inserted a rider to this authority: “Such authority, however, is not unbounded. In devising such a framework, the Commission must remain cognisant of the existing statutory scheme, and any departure there from must be informed by a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.”

Has this authority been breached? No. The ECI itself notes that under normal—non-SIR—conditions, voter enrolment is based on a plain Form 6. The very purpose of an SIR is to weed out duplications, remove dead voters from the rolls as well as remove the names of voters who have migrated. In such circumstances, enrolment using a plain Form 6 without the prescribed declaration is meaningless. A person removed from the rolls can simply fill a plain Form 6 and get back on the rolls. At a time of heightened scrutiny, it is incumbent on the ECI to check whether a person is a citizen of India or not.

The Supreme Court did not clarify the extent of the powers of the ECI to determine citizenship in the May 2026 judgment. It noted: “Section 16 of the RP Act explicitly disqualifies non-citizens from being registered in the electoral roll. The consequence of this provision is clear: Citizenship is a condition precedent for enrolment. The Commission, therefore, cannot discharge its obligation to maintain a valid electoral roll without satisfying itself that persons included therein meet this threshold requirement.”

The court said the ECI must satisfy itself that an applicant is a citizen of India. But two paragraphs later, the judgment went on to say: “However, such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of an elector whose name is already borne on the roll.”

This “balancing of interests” was based on the extraordinarily strong submissions made by the contending parties before the court. The Association for Democratic Rights claimed that the ECI does not have the power to determine citizenship and under the Citizenship Act, 1955 that power belongs to the Centre. The ECI said that it was empowered to make that determination under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 16 of that Act clearly says that a person who is not a citizen of India is disqualified for registration in an electoral roll. The court allowed the ECI to examine the question but circumscribed the manner and extent to which it could do so. The “presumption in favour” of a person already enrolled clearly signals this.

On paper, this “presumption” sounds fair: once a voter is enrolled, striking him or her off the rolls appears unfair. The trouble is that electoral rolls are not about “fairness” or some other moral criteria. As the ECI has emphasised repeatedly, voters die, migrate, or get their names deleted from the rolls as they shift. These are sound reasons for correcting the electoral rolls.

The second, more contested, reason for elimination is due to the dubious citizenship status of those enrolled earlier. This is one point where opposition parties, NGOs, and others converge against the ECI. This is also the most vital aspect of the clean-up. Of the 91 lakh names removed from the electoral rolls in West Bengal, the majority were from districts adjoining Bangladesh. It is an open secret that past governments in the state had abetted illegal immigration to remain in power. These illegal immigrants voted as a phalanx to favour parties that dominated Bengal’s politics till 2026. A similar process has taken place in Assam where decades of illegal immigration have changed the demography of most districts.

To say that citizenship can only be determined by the Centre is an argument meant to paralyse the process of weeding out illegal immigrants and non-citizens from the electoral rolls.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News