The Election Commission of India's (ECI) recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has ignited a debate surrounding citizenship verification, a domain the ECI has historically approached with caution. This renewed focus brings into sharp relief the significance of past Supreme Court orders that have shaped the boundaries of the ECI's authority in verifying citizenship for electoral eligibility.

One such landmark ruling is the 1995 Lal Babu Hussein case, where the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of an individual's eligibility to be included in electoral rolls based on citizenship. This case arose in response to ECI directives that empowered district collectors and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to verify and potentially remove names from electoral rolls of individuals suspected of not being Indian citizens. The core of the legal challenge revolved around the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure that such actions uphold the principles of natural justice and constitutional mandates.

In its deliberation, the Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural mechanisms employed by the ECI and administrative officers in identifying and removing names from electoral rolls. The Court overturned prior High Court dismissals of petitions challenging the ECI directives, emphasizing the necessity for due process and transparency in citizenship verification for electoral eligibility. The Supreme Court mandated that any action to delete a voter's name must be supported by adequate evidence and provide the affected individuals with a fair opportunity to present their case. This underscored the importance of natural justice, ensuring the process is not only procedurally sound but also substantively fair.

The implications of the Lal Babu Hussein case are far-reaching, impacting the conduct of elections and the maintenance of electoral rolls in India. The ruling reinforces the need for procedural integrity in verifying voters' citizenship, ensuring individuals are not unjustly deprived of their democratic rights. The directives issued by the Supreme Court mandate transparency, evidence-based processes, and fairness in any action involving the addition or deletion of names from electoral rolls, thereby safeguarding the electoral rights of citizens. The judgment serves as a critical safeguard against arbitrary exclusion from the democratic process, ensuring that electoral integrity is maintained through adherence to established legal principles and the tenets of natural justice.

However, the ECI's recent directive requiring individuals not featured in the 2003 electoral rolls to prove their citizenship according to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, has sparked controversy. This initiative has raised concerns about potential disenfranchisement, particularly among the poor and disadvantaged. The ECI requires one document from a list of eleven, including identity cards, birth certificates, passports, and matriculation certificates. The exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards from the list of acceptable documents has also raised questions, considering Aadhaar's widespread availability.

Critics argue that this requirement shifts the voting system from universal adult franchise to one favoring those with specific educational qualifications, potentially disenfranchising a significant portion of the population. Furthermore, the practical challenges of processing a large number of applications within a limited timeframe raise concerns about the feasibility and fairness of the process. Political parties have expressed concerns that the voter verification drive may disenfranchise marginalized communities and young voters.

The ECI maintains that the Special Intensive Revision is necessary to ensure error-free electoral rolls, citing reasons such as rapid urbanization, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths, and the inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants. The ECI claims that a significant number of electors would be able to avail themselves of the option of not submitting additional documents if their names feature in the electoral role of 2003.

As the ECI proceeds with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, it must navigate the delicate balance between ensuring the integrity of the electoral process and upholding the fundamental right to vote. The principles enshrined in the Supreme Court's past orders, particularly the Lal Babu Hussein case, serve as a guiding light, emphasizing the need for due process, transparency, and fairness in all citizenship verification efforts.