Newz Desk, Durgapur: The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that no voter can be removed from the electoral rolls without proper justification, while also questioning the scope and manner of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 States and Union Territories.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the remark after petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) argued that the ECI’s current verification drive contradicts its own long-standing guidelines.
“You cannot exclude a voter from the electoral roll without assigning reasons,” the Chief Justice said, underscoring the constitutional importance of the right to vote and procedural fairness.
‘Not Your Job to Judge Citizenship’: SC Reminds EC
ECI Cannot Assess Citizenship, ADR Tells Court
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, submitted that the SIR—initially launched in Bihar and later expanded—violates the Commission’s 2003 instructions that explicitly prohibit Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from making any determination about a person’s citizenship.
He stressed that only the Union Home Ministry has the authority to decide citizenship questions. “If there is doubt regarding citizenship, the matter can be referred to the Central Government. BLOs and field officials cannot carry out citizenship verification,” Bhushan said.
He cited past precedents, including the 1995 Lal Babu Hussein and 1984 Inderjit Barua rulings, which held that doubts over citizenship must follow due process and cannot be settled at the booth level.
2003 Precedent: Social Audits, Not Field-Level Citizenship Checks
Bhushan referred to an instance from Rajasthan in 2003, when then CEC J.M. Lyngdoh oversaw a large-scale clean-up of electoral rolls through Gram Sabha social audits, resulting in the deletion of seven lakh invalid or duplicate entries—but without empowering BLOs to rule on citizenship.
“That system has now been abandoned,” he told the Bench, adding that the ECI’s own manuals—described by him as the Commission’s ‘Bible’—require Electoral Registration Officers to meet political parties and share relevant details, a procedure that has not been followed during the current SIR.
‘Why the Hurry?’ asks Kapil Sibal
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for another petitioner, questioned the urgency behind the ECI’s move. He argued that the Commission’s accelerated timeline risked compromising both transparency and accuracy.
Bhushan further pointed out that the ECI has not relied on established deduplication tools such as demographic matching or photo-based comparison, which have been used effectively in the past.
Hearing to Continue
The Bench said it will examine whether the ongoing revision exercise aligns with the ECI’s own rulebook and constitutional safeguards, reiterating that deletion of names must follow due process with clear reasons recorded.
The matter will be heard next week.
Image courtesy@internet