The Supreme Court of India heard strong objections on Thursday against the Election Commission's nationwide drive to verify voters' citizenship through a special revision of electoral rolls. Senior political leaders argued that the exercise exceeds the constitutional powers of the poll body and could potentially disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters across the country.
Legal Challenge to Election Commission's Powers
Congress general secretary K C Venugopal and RJD MP Manoj Jha presented their case before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. They contended that the Election Commission has no legal authority to determine citizenship of voters, yet through what they termed an "unconstitutional" pan-India Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of state electoral rolls, it is demanding proof of Indian citizenship from voters.
Representing Jha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal informed the court that the documentation requirements under the SIR program could lead to massive disenfranchisement. "The kind of documents being sought from voters through enumeration forms under SIR will disfranchise lakhs and lakhs of voters who would not have documents to show their date of birth, landholding ownership or parents' birth certificates," Sibal argued.
Aadhaar as Solution and Constitutional Concerns
Sibal proposed an alternative approach, stating, "That is why we are insisting that Aadhaar must be the basis for enrolment in voter list." This suggestion highlights the ongoing debate about using the national identification system for electoral purposes while addressing concerns about document accessibility.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Venugopal along with TMC MP Mahua Moitra and NGO People's Union for Civil Liberties, challenged the fundamental basis of the SIR exercise. He asserted that the Representation of the People Act empowers the Election Commission to conduct revisions for specific constituencies, not nationwide implementations.
The Supreme Court bench engaged actively with the arguments, questioning whether the stated purpose of eliminating deceased individuals from voter lists should confine the exercise to particular constituencies or justify a nationwide approach.
Exclusionary Practices and Legal Mandate Questions
Singhvi characterized the entire SIR exercise as fundamentally exclusionary. "EC is conducting this exercise with a figment of imagination that masses of illegal migrants are marauding across India. And, the procedure adopted for conducting this exclusionary exercise is neither prescribed by the Constitution nor the RP Act," he contended.
The counsel highlighted discriminatory aspects of the implementation, noting that voters enrolled after 2003 face significantly different treatment compared to those registered earlier. "On one hand, EC is not asking those whose names figure in the 2003 voters' list for any document. On the other hand, a voter enrolled after 2003 is being discriminatorily asked to prove everything, including citizenship," Singhvi explained.
He further argued that through this citizenship verification drive, "EC is converting itself into a citizenship tribunal, which is beyond its constitutional mandate. EC can supplement the process prescribed in the RP Act, but not supplant it."
Implementation Concerns and Administrative Capacity
Sibal raised serious concerns about the implementation mechanism, pointing out that teachers and other government employees serving as booth level officers (BLOs) lack both the expertise and legal authority to scrutinize citizenship documents. Determination of citizenship properly falls under the jurisdiction of the ministry of home affairs, not electoral officials with limited training.
Election Commission counsel Eklavya Dwivedi countered this assertion, clarifying that BLOs do not scrutinize documents directly. This responsibility lies with electoral registration officers, who are Sub-Divisional Magistrate-level bureaucrats with appropriate administrative authority.
The legal proceedings remained inconclusive on Thursday, with arguments scheduled to continue the following Tuesday. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for voter enrollment processes and electoral rights across India.
