Experts Explain | Can Election Commission decide who is an Indian citizen? What Supreme Court said in SIR verdict

This judgment clarifies the scope of the Election Commission of India’s powers regarding electoral rolls and citizenship. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI is vested with the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, which includes the preparation of electoral rolls. The Court affirmed that the ECI has the authority to conduct Special Intensive Revisions (SIRs) and determine the technical modalities. However, a crucial distinction was drawn: while Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 mandates that a voter must be a citizen, the ECI’s refusal to enroll someone during an SIR only impacts their electoral rights, not their legal citizenship status. The power to determine citizenship lies exclusively with the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955. This highlights the principle of separation of powers and prevents an administrative body (ECI) from making final determinations on a fundamental right (citizenship).

The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and institutional accountability in administrative processes. The Supreme Court mandated that when the ECI doubts a person's citizenship during an SIR, it must refer the matter to the Central government, which must decide within a 'reasonable time' (ideally before the next election). This aims to prevent individuals from languishing in a state of statelessness or rightlessness, as seen with 'D-Voters' (Doubtful Voters) in Assam who face prolonged delays at Foreigners Tribunals. The judgment also highlights the role of civil society and political parties in ensuring the ECI adheres to the process and safeguards. Furthermore, the court noted that exclusion from electoral rolls cannot automatically lead to denial of welfare benefits unless specific schemes are amended to link eligibility explicitly to electoral enrollment, protecting socio-economic rights.

The judgment acknowledges the profound social implications of challenging an individual's citizenship. Denying citizenship affects an individual’s 'sense of identity and status within society.' The court cautioned against treating minor clerical errors (like mismatched names or ages) during the SIR process as grounds for disenfranchisement or citizenship referral. Widespread exclusions could overwhelm the capacity of tribunals (like the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam) and lead to marginalization, where individuals are denied basic entitlements like ration cards and bank accounts. This touches upon Article 21 (Right to Life), as the right to a dignified life is severely compromised without legal identity or access to state welfare mechanisms.