The Supreme Court has weighed in on the powers of the Election Commission (EC) regarding voter eligibility, clarifying that while the EC cannot definitively determine a voter's citizenship, it can certainly inquire into it. This pronouncement came during ongoing hearings regarding petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in several states, including Bihar. The core issue revolves around the extent to which the EC can question a voter's citizenship status during the revision of electoral rolls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi engaged in extensive discussions with petitioners who argue that the EC lacks the authority to question a voter's citizenship. The court acknowledged that Indian citizenship is a constitutional prerequisite for voting, not merely a matter of residence and age. The bench emphasized that simply residing in an area for years doesn't automatically qualify illegal immigrants as eligible voters.
The Supreme Court is exploring whether Article 324 of the Constitution grants the EC the power to conduct preliminary inquiries, without making a formal determination, to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls. Justice Bagchi raised the question of whether the EC could decide on a "presumptive stage of citizenship". He noted that while the EC cannot declare someone a foreigner, it may be constitutionally permissible to flag dubious cases and refer them to the appropriate authorities.
Petitioners challenging the SIR argued that the revision exercise suffers from jurisdictional overreach, procedural irregularity, and an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proving citizenship onto ordinary voters. Senior advocate, representing some of the petitioners, argued that determining citizenship does not fall within the EC's domain. He stated that the EC's power is limited to referring suspected cases to the district magistrate, with the central government or a Foreigners Tribunal holding the exclusive authority to make a determination. Once a name is on the electoral roll, it carries "strong presumptive value," requiring a "full-fledged, independent determination" for removal, not just an inquiry by electoral officials. It was submitted that adult suffrage requires only three conditions: Indian citizenship, being 18 years of age, and absence of specific disqualifications.
The Supreme Court acknowledged arguments that the EC's actions might be perceived as shifting the burden of proving citizenship onto voters. The court questioned whether the poll panel's power of superintendence under Article 324 extends to the core constitutional requirement of citizenship for the right to vote. The court observed that the challenge to SIR involves not only the EC's jurisdiction but also the manner in which its powers are exercised.
The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies the balance between the EC's duty to maintain accurate voter rolls and the rights of citizens. The EC can inquire into doubtful cases of citizenship to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The court has emphasized that the EC's role is limited to inquiry and referral, with the final determination of citizenship resting with the designated authorities.
