SC: Voter Roll Deletion Doesn’t Erase Citizenship, Election Commission Cannot Determine Status
Supreme Court ruled deletion from electoral rolls doesn't revoke citizenship and that Election Commission cannot determine citizenship status even as it controls voter lists.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : July 17, 2026 at 6:34 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said that deletion from electoral rolls does not revoke a person’s citizenship and clarified that the Election Commission manages voter lists but cannot decide citizenship status.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the Election Commission, the West Bengal government and the state poll panel on a plea seeking disclosure of assembly constituency-wise data on claims and objections filed by deleted voters during the SIR process.
The plea was filed by Prasenjit Bose, chairperson of the SIR Committee of West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee. Filed through lawyer Neha Rathi, the petition sought assembly constituency-wise data relating to the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, including the number of Forms 6 and 7 filed, admitted and rejected, as well as details regarding the pendency and disposal of appeals before the appellate tribunals.
The bench said it had made it clear in the Bihar SIR judgment that the ultimate authority to determine citizenship was not the Election Commission and the removal from electoral rolls cannot, by itself, result in the deprivation of citizenship.
During the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing for Bose, said that the manner in which 18 tribunals set up to deal with the claims and objections of deleted voters are functioning is causing discrepancies and delays at a practical level.
Sankaranarayan raised another issue and argued that there were consequences if deletions were to be sustained and added, “out of 38,000, which has been disposed of, 70% of those appeals were allowed. Now 30% appeals are not allowed then deletions stand.”
“They may possibly challenge in writs or whatever. But the consequence of deletion now is that between May 17 and now, three notifications have come saying ‘if you were deleted from the SIR list, you lose out on PDS,' which they were getting earlier, they have linked that to voting,” said Sankaranarayan.
The counsel argued that they are excluding people from the Annapurna scheme, which is meant for women, and women-centric cash transfer, and caste certificate verification if the person is excluded. The Bench said these concerns were voiced before it earlier and added, “we are conscious of this.” “We indicated in our judgment in Bihar SIR. We made it very clear that there is a corresponding duty of the ECI….”, observed Justice Bagchi. He added that if there is a deletion from the voters’ list but the status continues, the ECI has a corresponding duty to refer it to the ministry of the concerned central government department for adjudication under the situation.
Sankaranarayan said, “I don’t think either they disclosed or we apprehended that all these welfare schemes for people who reside here would also be withdrawn.”
The senior counsel stressed the civil rights of the people and added that these rights should not be taken away when the matter is under adjudication. “Our judgment is very clear: ECI is not a constitutional authority with regard to status under Articles 9, 10, 11, and 12,” said Justice Bagchi.
“There are two things: whether there is confusion in the law and whether the law is correctly implemented. In the first, we do not see any confusion. Our judgment is clear. ECI has control and superintendence over the electoral rolls. The EC can decide not to include someone…that is the citizen of the country. However, that does not result in loss of status of citizenship…”, observed Justice Bagchi observed.
Sankaranarayan argued that out of 34 lakh appeals pending, only 38,000 have been disposed of, leaving 33.5 lakh still pending, and these people have had benefits withdrawn while their appeals are pending. “Track record shows 70% of the appeals have been allowed,” said Sankaranarayan, adding that his client is suggesting some mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability, and to assist those 19 tribunals. He pressed that if somebody has a passport, that should be the clear pass.
The bench agreed to hear the fresh plea along with pending petitions including the one filed by former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on the SIR issue on August 25.
The plea seeks enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The SIR exercise in West Bengal resulted in the exclusion of over 58 lakh electors during the enumeration phase, it said, adding that while 9.64 lakh applications for inclusion (Forms 6 and 6A) and over 99,000 applications for deletion (Form 7) were received during the claims and objections phase, only around 1.82 lakh additions were ultimately reflected in the final electoral roll published on February 28.
Also Read
