"Exclusion From Voter List Doesn't Mean Citizenship Ends": Supreme Court On SIR

The Election Commission's powers in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls and do not extend to ascertaining citizenship status, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

The top court held that the SIR exercise does not confer any exclusive or unfettered power upon the ECI to decide citizenship questions.

Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon mechanics of polling, the top court said, upholding the power of the Election Commission to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls.

The top court made it clear that an exclusion from a voter list does not mean that a person loses citizenship.

"If a citizen does not appear on electoral roll that does not mean the citizen was unable to prove his citizenship, but shows the inability of the Election Commission to verify citizenship," the court said.

Those excluded from voter list, the court said, should be dealt with in accordance to law. 

The top court underlined that the entirety of the SIR process remains amenable to judicial review and that any wrongful exclusion or arbitrary action can be challenged before appropriate forums.

"We hold that impugned exercise was founded upon legitimate, constitutionally grounded purpose, namely restoration of accuracy," the court said.

The verdict came in petitions challenging the poll body's order directing Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls in Bihar assembly constituencies. The petitioners had argued that the poll body had illegally assumed powers to determine citizenship of individuals for inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls.

The court had reserved its verdict in January after hearing extensive submissions from the petitioners and the ECI over several weeks.

The top court held that the SIR exercise is not contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and observed that the exercise draws its legitimacy from Article 324 of the Constitution as well as the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.

On the poll body's prescription of eleven documents as proof of identity and eligibility, the court held that the documents are merely indicative in nature and not exhaustive. It reiterated that Aadhaar can also be accepted as an additional indicative document for the purposes of verification.