New Delhi, July 18: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that the removal of a person’s name from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process does not result in the loss of Indian citizenship.
The court also stated that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has no authority to determine questions of citizenship.
Hearing petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the issue had already been addressed in an earlier case concerning West Bengal.
The bench reiterated that citizenship cannot be decided solely on the basis of inclusion or exclusion from the voter list.
The court underlined that the Election Commission’s role is limited to preparing and revising electoral rolls and deciding voter eligibility under election laws.
Any dispute regarding a person’s citizenship must be decided by the competent authorities under the applicable legal framework.
During the hearing, the petitioners sought greater transparency in the SIR process.
They urged the Election Commission to make public the number of forms issued, applications received, applications accepted and rejected, as well as appeals pending before appellate tribunals.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that claims and objections filed by voters whose names were deleted are being handled by 18 tribunals.
He submitted that the absence of publicly available data has reduced transparency in the revision process.
The petitioners also contended that individuals whose names are removed from the electoral rolls may face practical difficulties in accessing government welfare schemes, obtaining caste certificates, and availing other public services before their appeals are decided.
Responding to these concerns, the Supreme Court observed that the Election Commission cannot decide matters relating to citizenship and must confine its role to electoral administration.
The bench emphasized that the right to vote and the question of citizenship are distinct legal issues and should not be treated as interchangeable.
The matter remains under consideration, with the Supreme Court expected to continue hearing the petitions in the coming days.
