New Delhi: The Election Commission on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it has both the authority and the responsibility to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls to ensure that only Indian citizens are enrolled as voters.
Making submissions for the poll panel, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The court resumed final hearings in a batch of petitions questioning the Election Commission’s decision to carry out the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, in several states, including Bihar. The challenges raise constitutional issues relating to the scope of the Commission’s powers, citizenship and the right to vote.
Dwivedi argued that the Constitution is predominantly citizen-centric and places a duty on constitutional authorities to ensure that foreigners do not figure on electoral rolls. Referring to provisions such as Article 124(3), which governs the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and high courts, he said all key constitutional offices require Indian citizenship. The same condition applies to offices such as the president, vice president and prime minister, he submitted.
“All vital appointments … no appointments can be made unless the person is a citizen, so our Constitution is citizen-centric predominantly,” Dwivedi told the bench.
He said the Election Commission is not required to respond to political rhetoric and must focus on discharging its constitutional role. “I am not commenting on the political parties. As the Election Commission, our duty is that no foreigner should be there,” he said, adding that the core question is whether the power and competence to do so exist.
Dwivedi framed a central issue for the court’s consideration, asking whether Article 324, which vests the Commission with powers of superintendence, direction and control over elections, is completely overridden by statutory provisions or whether its application must be examined case by case. He submitted that Articles 324, 325 and 326, read with Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, do not bar the Commission from revising electoral rolls. “The field is not totally foreclosed,” he said.
Tracing the evolution of voting rights, Dwivedi referred to colonial-era practices beginning with the 1909 introduction of separate electorates and noted that under the Government of India Acts, only about 15 per cent of the population could vote. He said the expansion of the franchise became a central element of the freedom movement and is reflected in the Constitution’s design of a democratic republic.
Addressing concerns that the SIR resembles a citizenship exercise like the National Register of Citizens, Dwivedi said the two serve different purposes. “The NRC includes all persons, whereas the electoral roll includes only citizens above the age of 18,” he said, noting that certain disqualified categories are excluded. “On the face of it, the electoral roll is not like the NRC.”
Even if there are “10 or thousands” of foreigners on the rolls, he said, they must be removed as part of the Commission’s constitutional obligation. Dwivedi is scheduled to resume his arguments on Thursday, January 8.
Earlier, the bench asked whether the Election Commission is barred from conducting inquiries in cases of doubtful citizenship and whether such an inquisitorial process falls outside its constitutional powers.