SC Reaffirms Key Position on Citizenship and Voter List
The Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that removing a person’s name from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process does not automatically strip them of Indian citizenship. The court reiterated that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has no constitutional authority to decide whether a person is a citizen and that deletion from the voter list alone cannot determine nationality.
The observations came while the apex court heard a petition seeking reforms in the functioning of Appellate Tribunals that handle appeals from people whose names were removed from electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.
ECI Must Refer Citizenship Questions to Centre
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana referred to its earlier Bihar SIR judgment, stating that the ECI’s role is limited to maintaining electoral rolls and not deciding questions of citizenship.
The Bench observed that whenever doubts arise regarding a person’s citizenship, the Election Commission must refer the matter to the Central Government for adjudication under the Citizenship Act. Until such a determination is made by the competent authority, the individual’s citizenship status continues to remain intact.
Justice Bagchi noted that deletion from the electoral rolls should not be treated as proof that a person has ceased to be an Indian citizen.
Petition Raises Concern Over Pending Appeals
The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that nearly 34 lakh appeals filed by people excluded from electoral rolls are still awaiting disposal before Appellate Tribunals. According to the submissions, only around 38,000 appeals have been decided so far, with nearly 70% reportedly being allowed, suggesting that many exclusions could eventually be reversed.
The petitioner argued that the delay has created uncertainty for thousands of affected citizens and sought judicial directions to improve the efficiency and transparency of the appellate process.
Welfare Benefits Allegedly Affected
During the hearing, concerns were also raised that some individuals whose names were deleted from voter lists were allegedly being denied access to welfare schemes, including benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS), Annapurna Yojana and even caste certificate services.
The petitioner contended that the loss of voting rights should not automatically affect access to government welfare programmes while appeals remain pending.
The Bench took note of the submissions and indicated that such issues would be examined along with the larger challenge to the SIR exercise.
Plea Seeks Transparency in Appeal Process
The petition has sought several reforms aimed at making the appellate mechanism more accessible and transparent. Among its demands are the publication of constituency-wise data on deleted voters, disclosure of pending appeals, advance notice of hearings, virtual hearing facilities, multilingual guidance for appellants and timely disposal of cases before future elections.
It also seeks public disclosure of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the Special Intensive Revision process and regular updates on the progress of appeals.
The Supreme Court has now tagged the matter with other pending petitions concerning the SIR exercise and will hear them together at a later date.
