SIR| Verification Of Citizenship Only For Electoral Purposes; The Method Is 'Liberal, Soft-Touch': ECI Tells Supreme Court

In the ongoing challenge to the SIR across states, the ECI told the Supreme Court that the verification of the citizenship of the voters was being done only for electoral purposes and not with the intent to deport non-citizens. The ECI also argued that the process of verification was a 'liberal, soft-touch' approach and did not involve a rigorous investigation per se. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter.Yesterday, Sr Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, countered the reliance placed by the petitioners on the decision in Lal Babu Hussein (1995) . As per the Lal Babu Hussein judgment, a person included in the voters' list is presumed to be an Indian citizen and the burden is on the objector to prove otherwise. It was the petitioners' argument that, in the present SIR process, the entire burden is reversed, and the voters are asked to prove citizenship even if they are included in the voters' list.Dwivedi stressed that the factual backdrop in which Lal Babu was considered was distinctively different from the present scenario. He argued that in Lal Babu, (1) the case hearing was preceded by an SIR- thus the Court presumed that citizenship of the voters must have been verified; (2) the entire exercise was done by the police; (3) no report of the police was there.In the present case, the Counsel submitted, (1) there is no police involvement, the ECI is carrying out the SIR; (2) the SIR has happened in Bihar and is ongoing in few other states; (3) and there is 'sufficient probative value' given to inclusion in prior voter list a per direction no. 3 of the SIR notification. The direction states : “If any person whose citizenship is suspected is shown to have been included in the immediately preceding electoral roll, the Electoral Registration Officer or any other officer inquiring into the matter shall bear in mind that the entire gamut for inclusion of the name in the electoral roll must have been undertaken and hence adequate probative value be attached to that factum before issuance of notice and in subsequent proceedings.”Dwivedi explained that as per this direction, the ECI has sufficiently adhered to the probative value quotient by ensuring (1) enumeration forms are sent to all the voters as of June 2025; probative value to all those in 2002 rolls; (3) persons are given the opportunity to establish linkage to any of the parents who are on the 2002 rolls; (4) those who cannot establish the linkage can still verify through the other documents mentioned in the SIR notification.Right To Vote Lies In Adult Suffrage Under Article 326- Which Has 3 Main ConditionsDwivedi answered the question previously raised by the bench on whether the right to vote of a person can be taken away till the Central Government determines the question of citizenship.According to Dwivedi, the answer lies in the holistic understanding of Article 326 read with S.16 of the Representation of the People Act. He pointed out that Article 326 has an exhaustive definition of adult suffrage, which is not just limited to 18 years but also 2 other qualifying factors- not disqualified by law and registered as a voter. Article 326 states : "The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less thaneighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election." Dwivedi thus submitted that "Adult suffrage is not just age, it has 3 limbs constituting the limbs of the adult suffrage- in the constitutional sense ." He then emphasised the conditions under S.16 of the RP Act make it further clear as who can be eligible to vote. Dwivedi also submitted that the petitioners' argument that if a person is not declared as a citizen, still should be included in the rolls, would go against the Constitution, as the Constitution is citizen-centric.Determining Citizenship Is Only For The Purpose Of Revising Electoral Rolls, Not For Weeding Out Foreigners: ECI Clarifies During the hearings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the ADR, said that it was not the petitioners' case that non-citizens be allowed to vote; the petitioners' main issue was whether ECI could have the powers to determine citizenship. "I don't think there is a dispute on whether someone who is not a citizen should be added to the list; the point is who does the exercise of determining the citizenship if there is a dispute- that's the question," Bhushan had argued.In response, Dwivedi clarified that, "The ECI is under a constitutional duty to...

SIR| Verification Of Citizenship Only For Electoral Purposes; The Method Is 'Liberal, Soft-Touch': ECI Tells Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags