The Hindu:- Published on 7 January 2026
Why in News?
The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court on January 6, 2026, asserting that ensuring only Indian citizens figure on voter lists is a constitutional mandate, not an administrative choice. Rejecting claims that the exercise amounts to a “parallel NRC”, the ECI argued that voter roll purification is essential to democratic integrity.
The case, heard by a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, arises from challenges to the SIR in Bihar and 12 other States/UTs. Launched in Bihar in 2025 and now expanded to 13 States/UTs, the exercise has led to significant deletions, including 2.89 crore names in Uttar Pradesh and about 6.5 lakh in Bihar (Phase-1). Petitioners allege risks of mass disenfranchisement, especially for migrants and vulnerable groups, prompting judicial scrutiny amid post-2024 election concerns and border-state sensitivities.
ECI’s Constitutional Mandate
Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted that the Commission has a constitutional obligation to exclude foreigners from electoral rolls. He emphasized that even the presence of a single foreign national on the voter list undermines constitutional democracy.
The ECI relied primarily on Article 324, which grants it superintendence, direction, and control over elections, and Article 326, which restricts the right to vote exclusively to citizens aged 18 and above. The argument underscored the citizen-centric nature of the Indian Constitution, pointing out that constitutional offices—such as the President, Members of Parliament, and judges—are all reserved for citizens, making citizenship a foundational prerequisite for electoral participation.
SIR and NRC: Distinct Legal Exercises
The ECI strongly rejected comparisons between the SIR and the NRC. It clarified that the NRC is a comprehensive citizenship register covering all residents and is conducted by the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, whereas electoral rolls are limited to eligible voters and fall squarely within the ECI’s constitutional domain.
Unlike the NRC, the SIR excludes minors and persons of unsound mind, and its sole objective is to maintain accurate voter lists, not to determine or cancel citizenship. The ECI further argued that Parliament’s law-making power under Article 327 is subordinate to Articles 324 and 326, reinforcing the Commission’s independent authority over electoral rolls.
Citizenship Verification and Legal Authority
The ECI clarified that it does not declare individuals as foreigners. Its role is limited to verifying eligibility to vote, which necessarily involves checking citizenship status. While Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 empowers the Central Government to decide cases of foreign citizenship acquisition, the ECI retains the authority to assess citizenship solely for electoral purposes.
Drawing on Constituent Assembly debates, the Commission argued that citizenship verification has been central to India’s democratic framework since independence, and political narratives or numerical considerations cannot dilute this responsibility.
Process, Safeguards, and Concerns
The SIR process involves self-attestation by voters, submission of supporting documents such as proof of birth and parental citizenship, and field verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). Individuals excluded from draft rolls have access to legal remedies through Form 6 (inclusion) and Form 7 (objection/deletion), along with statutory appeals under the Representation of the People Act.
However, critics have raised concerns about administrative errors, potential misuse of Aadhaar, and the exclusion of migrant workers and urban poor who may lack documentary proof. The ECI has reiterated that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship and that procedural safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary exclusions.
Broader Implications
If the Supreme Court upholds the ECI’s position, it would significantly strengthen the autonomy of the Election Commission and reinforce the principle of electoral purity. It could also lend institutional support to broader electoral reforms, including discussions around “One Nation, One Election”.
Conversely, unchecked deletions risk undermining inclusive democracy, particularly in high-migration states. The case thus represents a critical constitutional moment balancing sovereignty and suffrage, as well as administrative efficiency and individual rights.
Way Forward
A balanced approach is essential to reconcile electoral integrity with democratic inclusion. The Supreme Court may consider laying down uniform national guidelines for voter roll revisions, ensuring transparency, adequate notice, and reasonable evidentiary standards. Strengthening grievance redressal mechanisms, improving awareness among voters, and leveraging technology without diluting due process can help minimize wrongful exclusions.
Ultimately, safeguarding democracy requires both clean electoral rolls and the protection of genuine voters’ rights, and the resolution of this case will shape the future contours of electoral governance in India.
