‘Electoral Roll Is Not Like NRC, Essential To Ensure No Foreigner Registered As Voter’, EC On SIR In SC

New Delhi: The Election Commission (EC) on Tuesday contended before the Supreme Court that it possesses the power and competence to undertake a special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, and that it also bears a constitutional duty to ensure no foreigners are registered as voters.

The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the poll body before the bench. The poll body, defending the SIR, made it clear that the electoral roll and the NRC serve fundamentally different purposes, and also clarified that it is not making political judgments but discharging its constitutional obligation.

The apex court resumed final hearings on a batch of petitions challenging the poll body’s decision to undertake the SIR exercise in several states, including Bihar.

During the hearing, the poll body stressed that it has the “constitutional power, even a constitutional duty” to ensure that not a single foreigner is registered on the electoral rolls. Dwivedi also addressed concerns that the SIR could amount to a parallel citizenship-determination exercise akin to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Dwivedi made it clear that the electoral roll and the NRC serve fundamentally different purposes. "On the face of it, the electoral roll is not like the NRC," Dwivedi said.

“The NRC includes all persons, whereas the electoral roll includes only citizens above the age of 18," he said. Dwivedi said that persons of unsound mind or otherwise disqualified cannot be included in the voter list.

He maintained that Article 326 mandates that only citizens can vote and that citizenship must be acquired through a competent authority. He emphasized that even if there are 10 or thousands of foreigners on the rolls, they have to be excluded.

Dwivedi pointed out that all key constitutional functionaries across the three organs of the state must be Indian citizens, citing provisions such as Article 124(3) of the Constitution relating to the appointment of judges of the apex court and high court.

"All vital appointments ... no appointments can be made unless the person is a citizen, so our Constitution is citizen-centric predominantly," Dwivedi said.

He said there is a constitutional duty to ensure that on the electoral roll, there should not be any foreigners and his client is not supposed to respond to political parties' rhetoric.

Dwivedi said articles 324, 325 and 326 of the Constitution, read with section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, do not foreclose the poll body’s authority in the field of revision of electoral rolls.

The poll body’s counsel, tracing the evolution of the franchise, took the bench through colonial-era electoral practices, beginning with the introduction of separate communal electorates in 1909 and the limited franchise under the Government of India Acts, where only about 15 per cent of the population had voting rights.

Dwivedi would continue to make submissions on January 8. The apex court had earlier asked whether the poll body is barred from conducting an inquiry in case of a doubtful citizen and if an inquisitorial process falls outside its constitutional power.