New Delhi, December 10, 2025 – In a significant clarification on the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Supreme Court has ruled that while the poll body cannot definitively decide a person's citizenship status, it is empowered to conduct inquiries into cases where a voter's inclusion in the electoral rolls appears doubtful.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made these observations during a hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, particularly in Assam, aimed at verifying voter lists amid concerns over illegal migration. The ruling underscores a delicate balance between ensuring electoral integrity and preventing arbitrary exclusions, as the court distinguished between "determination" of citizenship – a domain reserved for government authorities or Foreigners Tribunals – and preliminary "inquiry" by the ECI.
### Inquiry vs. Determination: Court's Key Distinction
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioners, argued that under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, inclusion in the voter list requires only proof of age (over 18) and ordinary residence, along with a self-declaration of citizenship. He contended that the ECI lacks jurisdiction to probe citizenship, as this could lead to mass exclusions under the guise of identifying non-citizens, a process statutorily assigned to Foreigners Tribunals set up by the central government.
Rejecting this absolutist view, the bench emphasized that citizenship is a "constitutional requirement" for voter eligibility, not merely a statutory formality. "EC does not claim that it has the power to determine citizenship of a person or declare him as a foreigner. But, if it has doubts about the citizenship of a person registered as a voter or seeking inclusion of name as a voter, it can surely inquire into it," the court stated.
Justice Bagchi further probed the boundaries of the ECI's authority under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it superintendence over elections. "There is a difference between determination and inquiry… Can the EC do an inquiry in case of doubtful citizens? EC is not saying that they have the right to declare someone as a non-citizen…but will it be beyond the jurisdiction of EC keeping in view its constitutional power to do a process which is inquisitorial in nature, like where an inclusion looks highly dubious, and thus make the process streamlined?" he asked.
The court illustrated its point with a hypothetical: an illegal migrant residing in India for over a decade and aged above 18 cannot be presumed a citizen solely based on residence and age proofs. "To argue that citizenship is to be presumed when residential and age criteria are met will be wrong," the bench observed, affirming the ECI's role in flagging suspicious entries for referral to competent authorities.
### Background: The SIR Controversy
The SIR exercise, initiated by the ECI in select districts of Assam, involves document-based verification to purge "doubtful" voters from rolls, drawing sharp criticism from civil society groups and opposition parties. Petitioners, including organizations like Citizens for Justice and Peace, alleged procedural irregularities and jurisdictional overreach, warning of disenfranchisement similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process.
Farasat highlighted the "danger of illegal migrants getting into voters' lists is far less compared to mass exclusion of voters in the name of identifying non-citizens," urging the court to strike down the SIR as unconstitutional. The ECI, in response, maintained that its actions are limited to preliminary scrutiny and do not extend to final citizenship adjudication, aligning with the court's endorsement.
### Implications for Electoral Integrity
This ruling could pave the way for expanded ECI probes nationwide, particularly in border states prone to migration concerns. However, it also sets guardrails: the ECI must refer doubtful cases to tribunals without preempting outcomes. "ECI is not inert. It can certainly doubt an entry and refer it to the (foreigner) tribunal. It looks into the documents with regard to relevance and in doing that, does it transgress the jurisdiction in deciding citizenship?" the bench queried, signaling potential future guidelines on the inquiry process.
The matter is listed for further hearing, with the court expected to delve deeper into procedural safeguards. Legal experts view this as a pragmatic affirmation of the ECI's "presumptive" role in voter verification, ensuring elections remain free from ineligible participants without overstepping into judicial territory.
As India gears up for upcoming state polls, this verdict reinforces the poll body's proactive stance while cautioning against misuse, balancing democratic access with the sanctity of the franchise.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
