The Election Commission of India (ECI) firmly defended its authority before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, stating it possesses both the power and constitutional competence to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The poll body argued it is duty-bound to ensure that no foreigners find a place on the voter lists.
Constitutional Duty to Ensure Purity of Rolls
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, presented these submissions before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the EC's decision to undertake the SIR exercise in several states, including Bihar. These petitions raise significant constitutional questions regarding the scope of the Commission's powers, citizenship, and the fundamental right to vote.
Dwivedi anchored his arguments in the Constitution's citizen-centric design. He emphasized that citizenship is a foundational requirement for holding any public office in India. Citing provisions like Article 124(3) for judicial appointments, he stated that all key constitutional functionaries across the legislature, executive, and judiciary must be Indian citizens. This prerequisite extends to the offices of the President, Vice President, and Prime Minister.
"All vital appointments ... no appointments can be made unless the person is a citizen, so our Constitution is citizen-centric predominantly," Dwivedi asserted, according to PTI. He stressed that this principle logically extends to the electoral franchise, making it a constitutional duty to ensure the electoral roll is free of foreigners.
EC's Powers Under Article 324 Not Displaced
Resuming his arguments, Dwivedi framed the core legal issue: whether Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants the EC powers of superintendence, direction, and control over elections, is completely overridden by statutory laws. He contended that its application must be examined contextually.
He submitted that a combined reading of Articles 324, 325, and 326 of the Constitution with Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act does not bar the Commission from exercising its authority in revising rolls. "The field is not totally foreclosed," he argued, maintaining that the EC retains inherent constitutional competence to ensure the purity of voter lists.
Dwivedi also addressed the political sensitivity surrounding the exercise, clarifying that the EC's role is apolitical. "I am not commenting on the political parties, as the Election Commission, our duty is that no foreigner should be there.... It is to be seen that the power is there and the competence is there," he told the court.
SIR is Not a Parallel NRC, Says EC Counsel
A significant part of the hearing addressed concerns that the SIR could morph into a citizenship verification drive akin to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Dwivedi drew a clear distinction between the two processes.
He explained that the NRC aims to include all persons resident in an area, whereas the electoral roll includes only citizens above 18 years of age, excluding those disqualified on grounds of unsound mind or other criteria. "On the face of it, the electoral roll is not like the NRC," he reiterated, emphasizing that Article 326 permits only citizens to vote, and this status must be ascertained by a competent authority.
Dwivedi asserted that even if "10 or thousands" of foreigners are identified on the rolls, they must be removed. He clarified that this is not a political judgment but the fulfillment of a constitutional obligation.
The senior advocate traced the evolution of voting rights from the limited franchise of the colonial era to universal adult suffrage, highlighting that the expansion of the franchise was a central goal of India's freedom struggle. "Not only Article 326, but the entire Constitution, when it speaks of a democratic republic, reflects an intention to create a citizen-centric polity," he concluded.
The bench had earlier questioned whether the EC is barred from conducting inquiries into doubtful citizenship and if such a process falls outside its mandate. Dwivedi is scheduled to resume his arguments on Thursday, January 8.
