SIR | Removal From Electoral Roll Doesn't Mean Loss Of Citizenship : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday orally reiterated that deletion from the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise will not automatically result in the loss of the citizenship status.

The Court pointed out that it had made it clear in the Bihar SIR judgment that the ultimate authority to determine citizenship was not the Election Commission of India, and the removal from electoral rolls cannot, by itself, result in the deprivation of citizenship.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Prasenjit Bose, seeking various reliefs to streamline the hearing process in the appellate tribunals constituted to hear the appeals of SIR-excluded persons.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, submitted that as per reports, 34 lakh appeals are still pending before the 19 Appellate Tribunals (from which 2 judges have resigned).  He pointed out that very few appeals (around 38,000) have been decided so far, and they show that at least 70% of the appeals are allowed.

While the appeals are pending, the West Bengal Government has issued notifications to deny benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS), and welfare measures such as Annapurna Yojana to those deleted from the electoral rolls. Even caste certificates are being denied to those persons, the senior counsel highlighted.

At this point, Justice Bagchi said that in terms of the Court's Bihar SIR judgment, the ECI is not a constitutional authority to decide citizenship. Rather, once  person is removed from the electoral roll on doubtful citizenship,  the ECI has a duty to make an application to the Centre for determination of their citizenship status.

"We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we made clear that ECI has a corresponding duty that as soon as there is a decision, it has to refer to the Ministry for adjudication under Citizenship Act. Unless that is done, status must go on", said Justice Bagchi.

In response, Gopal S urged that nobody apprehended that after the SIR, the Government will start denying other benefits to persons deleted from the rolls.

"I think to be fair, I don't think either they disclosed or we apprehended at all that all these other welfare schemes which are available to people who reside here would also be withdrawn. I don't think that was apprehended by your lordships because then I presume your lordships could add one sentence saying, while it's being adjudicated, please don't take other civil rights which are available to citizens."

On this, Justice Bagchi said, "Our judgment is clear - ECI is not a constitutional authority with regard to status under Art 9, 10, 11 and 12...ECI has control over rolls. It can decide not to include someone. However, that does not result in loss of status of citizenship per se. Therefore, we have given corresponding duty."

Sankaranarayanan however submitted that on ground level, citizenship benefits are being denied to those persons.

"What I'm explaining is this: that after 34 lakh appeals that are pending, if only 38,000 have been disposed of, there are 33 and a half lakh that are still pending. Now, those 33 and a half lakh have all these things being withdrawn from them, while their appeals are pending, where at least the track record shows 70% of the appeals have been allowed...That deprivation will continue until the appeals are heard. So we are only suggesting mechanisms to try and ensure some transparency and accountability, and to assist those 19 tribunals," he submitted.

The senior counsel asserted that there should be a mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency. He also contended that if someone has a passport, "it should be a clear pass" (for citizenship). Ultimately, the bench re-listed the matter alongwith the pleas challenging West Bengal SIR.

The petition has been filed seeking directions to streamline and make more accessible the appellate process for electors whose names have been deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, while also seeking greater transparency in the exercise through disclosure of constituency-wise data and publication of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the process.

The petition, filed by Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi on July 8, seeks a series of directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other authorities aimed at making the SIR appeal mechanism more elector-friendly.

Among the key reliefs sought are directions to permit appellants and their authorised representatives to appear before Appellate Tribunals through video conferencing, ensure that hearing notices are served at least seven days in advance through both electronic means and physical service by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and prescribe a time-bound schedule for disposal of all appeals before the next election, with appeals arising from Municipal Corporation and Municipality areas receiving priority.

The petitioner has also sought directions to frame a simplified, step-by-step guide to the appellate process in Bangla, Hindi and English to improve public awareness and accessibility.

Further, the plea seeks a direction permitting electors whose names were deleted during any of the three stages of the SIR process, enumeration, claims and objections, and adjudication of logical discrepancy cases, to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunals for restoration of their names in the electoral rolls.

Besides seeking reforms to the appellate process, the petition also calls for greater transparency in the SIR exercise. It seeks directions to the respondents to disclose Assembly constituency-wise data on Form 6 applications (for inclusion of names) and Form 7 applications (for objections/deletion), including the number of applications submitted, admitted and rejected during the claims and objections phase and subsequent stages.

The petition also seeks disclosure of the number of cases pending before Appellate Tribunals in each Assembly constituency, the number of appeals filed by deleted electors seeking restoration and by the ECI seeking exclusion, as well as the data required to be published under Formats 1 to 8 of the ECI Manual on Electoral Roll, 2024.

Additionally, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Union of India and the Election Commission to place in the public domain the Standard Operating Procedure framed on April 7, 2026 by a three-member judicial committee, which was referred to in the Supreme Court's order dated April 13, 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1089 of 2025.

The plea also seeks a direction to the authorities to publish regular bulletins indicating the number of appeals heard and decided by the Appellate Tribunals.

The petition was filed through AoR Neha Rathi.

Case Title: PRASENJIT BOSE v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 819/2026