Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has raised a significant constitutional question on the right to vote and citizenship determination while hearing petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across various States. The Court asked whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) can temporarily deprive a person of their voting rights merely because their citizenship is under doubt and pending determination by the Central Government.
This issue goes to the heart of constitutional democracy, balancing electoral integrity against individual rights under Article 326 of the Constitution. The proceedings have sparked debate on the scope of ECI’s powers, the legality of inquisitorial inquiries into citizenship, and the procedural safeguards available to voters.
Background: What Is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an exercise undertaken by the Election Commission to verify and update electoral rolls, primarily to remove:
- Duplicate entries
- Ineligible voters
- Names of non-citizens
Petitions filed by civil society groups, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have challenged the manner in which SIR is being conducted, alleging that it may lead to arbitrary disenfranchisement, particularly of vulnerable populations.
Supreme Court’s Key Question to the ECI
During the hearing, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked a pointed question:
Can the right to vote be taken away from a person until the Central Government finally decides their citizenship status?
This question arose after the ECI argued that it has the authority to strike off names of “doubtful voters” from electoral rolls even while their citizenship is pending determination by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
ECI’s Stand: Power to Conduct Inquisitorial Inquiry
Appearing for the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that:
- Under *Article 326, the *Representation of the People Act, 1950, and related Rules,
- Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are empowered to conduct inquisitorial inquiries into voter eligibility, including citizenship.
He emphasised that the ECI does not act arbitrarily but through statutory authorities, and such inquiries are limited to determining eligibility for electoral rolls.
According to the ECI:
- It need not wait for the Central Government’s final decision on citizenship.
- For electoral purposes, once citizenship is doubtful, the voter’s name can be removed.
- The reference to the Centre is for determining whether the person is a foreigner and their right to stay in India, not for deciding electoral eligibility.
Judicial Concerns: Citizenship vs Voting Rights
Justice Bagchi raised a crucial concern:
Once citizenship is doubted and the matter is referred to the Central Government, can the right to vote be kept in abeyance until a final decision is taken?
The Court questioned whether such deprivation aligns with the scheme of the Citizenship Act and whether temporary disenfranchisement is constitutionally permissible without a final determination.
This reflects the Court’s concern about procedural fairness, especially since the right to vote, though statutory, plays a central role in democratic participation.
Analogy with MMDR Act: Is It Comparable?
Dwivedi relied on Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which requires Indian citizenship for grant of mining leases. He argued that authorities under that Act also conduct inquiries into citizenship without waiting for a separate declaration.
However, critics argue that:
- Mining leases are privileges, not democratic rights.
- Voting impacts representative governance, making stricter safeguards necessary.
The comparison raises the issue of whether administrative convenience can override constitutional sensitivity attached to electoral rights.
Safeguards and Remedies: ECI’s Defence
The ECI assured the Court that sufficient remedial safeguards exist:
- Affected persons can file appeals.
- Judicial review remains available.
- Courts can intervene if the ECI’s action is perverse or arbitrary.
Dwivedi argued that the electoral process cannot be stalled merely because some individuals may be found ineligible, stressing the need for efficient governance.
He even invoked Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, stating that in large administrative processes, some hardship is inevitable.
Constitutional and Democratic Implications
This case raises several important constitutional questions:
1. Scope of Article 326
Article 326 mandates elections based on adult suffrage, limited only by disqualifications expressly provided by law. Whether pending citizenship determination qualifies as such a disqualification remains unsettled.
2. Due Process and Natural Justice
Striking a name off the electoral roll before a final determination risks violating:
- Principles of natural justice
- Presumption of citizenship until proven otherwise
3. Risk of Disenfranchisement
Civil rights groups fear that SIR may disproportionately affect:
- Migrants
- Minorities
- Economically weaker sections
leading to mass exclusion without adequate procedural protection.
Case Details
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 640 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
The matter is scheduled to be heard further on January 15, 2026.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s question strikes at the core of Indian democracy—whether administrative efficiency can justify the temporary suspension of voting rights without a final determination of citizenship.
While the Election Commission maintains that such powers are essential to preserve electoral purity, the Court’s intervention signals caution against overreach that may undermine democratic participation.
The final outcome of this case will likely set a constitutional benchmark on:
- The limits of ECI’s authority
- The relationship between citizenship determination and electoral rights
- The balance between state power and individual liberty
As the hearings continue, the case will remain closely watched for its far-reaching impact on voting rights, electoral law, and constitutional governance in India.
Also Read
Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court Bars Objections by Transferee Pendente Lite
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
