Election Commission Asserts Authority to Examine Citizenship for Electoral Rolls

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly defended its constitutional and statutory authority before the Supreme Court to examine an individual’s citizenship status for the limited purpose of preparing and revising electoral rolls. The submissions were made during hearings on petitions challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in certain states, particularly Bihar. Petitioners have questioned whether the ECI can scrutinise citizenship while updating electoral rolls, arguing that such an exercise goes beyond its mandate.

EC tells SC it is empowered to examine citizenship for electoral purposes(HT_PRINT) | LiveMint

EC’s Stand: Citizenship Review Limited to Voting Rights

Representing the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi told the apex court that the Commission’s role is confined strictly to determining whether a person is eligible to be included in the voter list. According to the ECI, this authority flows directly from the Constitution, which allows only Indian citizens above the age of 18 to vote. The Commission clarified that examining citizenship for electoral purposes does not amount to a broader determination of nationality under citizenship law, nor does it automatically lead to consequences such as deportation.

The ECI emphasised that its findings during the SIR process only impact the electoral roll. In cases where serious doubts arise, the matter may be referred to the central government under existing laws such as the Citizenship Act or the Foreigners Act, but the Election Commission itself does not take punitive action.

Constitutional and Legal Basis of the ECI’s Powers

The Election Commission has relied on Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution to justify its position. Article 324 vests the Commission with the power of superintendence, direction and control over elections, while Article 326 clearly states that the right to vote is available only to Indian citizens. The ECI argued that ensuring the purity of electoral rolls is a constitutional obligation, not a discretionary function.

In addition, the Commission pointed to provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which empower electoral authorities to conduct inquiries, hear objections and make determinations related to voter eligibility. These powers, the ECI maintained, necessarily include the ability to examine whether a person fulfils the basic requirement of citizenship.

Concerns Raised by Petitioners and Civil Society

Those challenging the SIR exercise have argued that allowing the Election Commission to examine citizenship could open the door to an indirect or informal citizenship verification process similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). They have expressed concerns that stringent documentation requirements could disproportionately affect marginalised communities, migrant workers and economically weaker sections who may lack formal records.

Petitioners have also argued that citizenship determination is the exclusive domain of the Union government and designated tribunals, and that electoral authorities should not step into this area, even indirectly.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Related Developments

The Supreme Court has engaged closely with the issue, seeking to balance electoral integrity with voter rights. In earlier related directions, the Court has clarified that documents such as Aadhaar may be used as proof of identity during voter list revisions, while reiterating that Aadhaar by itself is not proof of citizenship. The court has repeatedly stressed the need for due process, transparency and safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not wrongly excluded.

The hearings are part of a broader judicial scrutiny of electoral roll revisions across states, especially in the run-up to important elections.

The MGMM Outlook

The Election Commission of India’s assertion before the Supreme Court underscores a fundamental principle of electoral democracy: the right to vote is inseparably linked to citizenship. By clarifying that its examination of citizenship is strictly limited to electoral eligibility, the ECI has drawn a clear boundary between maintaining accurate voter rolls and undertaking broader citizenship adjudication. Articles 324 and 326 of the Constitution, along with provisions of the Representation of the People Act, place a constitutional duty on the Commission to ensure that only eligible citizens are included in electoral rolls. In this context, verifying citizenship for voting purposes emerges not as an overreach, but as an essential safeguard to preserve the integrity, fairness and credibility of elections.

At the same time, the concerns raised about potential exclusion of vulnerable populations highlight the need for transparency, procedural safeguards and proportionality in the revision process. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on due process, and its clarification that identity documents like Aadhaar cannot be equated with proof of citizenship, reinforces the balance that must be maintained between electoral purity and voter inclusion. The ongoing judicial scrutiny reflects a broader democratic challenge—strengthening institutions without weakening citizens’ rights. How this balance is ultimately defined will shape not only voter roll management but also public trust in India’s electoral system in the years ahead.

(Sources: LiveMint, The New Indian Express, The Indian Express)