The Election Commission made significant submissions before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the poll panel before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
EC's Constitutional Authority
Dwivedi presented a strong defense of the Election Commission's powers. He stated the commission functions as the original authority in electoral matters. This includes issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of polls.
The senior advocate emphasized a crucial point. When someone acquires citizenship of another country, the Election Commission examines this for electoral purposes. The commission's opinion on such matters becomes binding on the President.
Limited Scope of SIR Exercises
Dwivedi clarified the nature of Special Intensive Revision exercises. These SIR processes are currently under challenge in several states including Bihar. Petitioners have raised constitutional questions about the poll panel's powers.
The senior lawyer explained the consequences carefully. An adverse finding during SIR leads only to exclusion from electoral rolls. It does not automatically result in deportation of the individual.
"It does not ipso facto result in deportation," Dwivedi told the court. He added that appropriate cases might be referred to the central government. The government would then scrutinize them under the Citizenship Act and related laws.
Defending the Electoral Process
Dwivedi rejected comparisons with the National Register of Citizens. He stated clearly that electoral rolls are fundamentally different from the NRC. The NRC includes all persons, while electoral rolls include only qualified citizens above eighteen years.
He referred to specific legal provisions during his arguments. Sections 146A to 146C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provide statutory mechanisms. These empower the Election Commission to conduct hearings and make decisions.
The commission can even exercise powers similar to those of a civil court. This authority applies specifically to questions relevant to electoral rolls.
Citizenship as Prerequisite
The senior advocate pointed out broader regulatory contexts. In many statutory frameworks, citizenship serves as a basic prerequisite. Mining leases and other statutory benefits often require citizenship verification.
Competent authorities routinely examine citizenship status for limited statutory purposes. Dwivedi argued the Election Commission operates within similar parameters. Its scrutiny focuses solely on determining eligibility for voter lists.
He emphasized the constitutional foundation of this process. Article 326 of the Constitution mandates that only citizens can vote. The Election Commission has a constitutional duty to ensure no foreigner appears on electoral rolls.
"Even if there are ten or thousands of foreigners on the rolls, they have to be excluded," Dwivedi stated. He described this not as political judgment but as constitutional obligation.
Judicial Observations and Responses
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi made interesting observations about citizenship law evolution. He noted how citizenship criteria have tightened over time in India.
Dwivedi responded with historical context. He referred to Article 5 of the Constitution and Constituent Assembly debates from January 1949. India was in a unique transitional phase during independence and the first general elections.
The Citizenship Act came only in 1955, he reminded the court. Part II of the Constitution concerning citizenship was still being finalized during Assembly debates. Dwivedi argued judgments must be understood in their historical and political context.
Practical Implementation
The senior advocate explained the operational mechanism. Electoral Registration Officers act under the Election Commission's supervision. These officers are competent to conduct limited inquisitorial inquiries for electoral purposes.
Justice Bagchi raised an important practical question. He asked whether voting rights could be suspended while citizenship issues remain pending before the central government.
Dwivedi responded with clarification. Any restriction would apply only for examining eligibility to remain on electoral rolls. Questions about stay in India or deportation would remain within the government's domain.
The bench heard extensive submissions from Dwivedi defending the SIR exercise. He argued it falls squarely within the constitutional and statutory mandate of the poll body. The hearings are part of a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission's decision to undertake SIR in several states.
The Supreme Court bench is likely to resume hearing this important case on Thursday.
