New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed that exclusion or deletion of a person’s name from the electoral rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise does not amount to loss of Indian citizenship and cannot be used to deny access to government welfare schemes.
Hearing a batch of petitions, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana expressed concern over reports that individuals whose names had been removed from electoral rolls were being treated as non-citizens and denied welfare benefits in some states, including West Bengal.
The court made the observation while issuing notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the West Bengal government on a plea seeking directions that persons removed from the electoral rolls after rejection of their appeals by Special Tribunals under the SIR exercise should continue to receive benefits under government welfare schemes.
Recalling its May 27 judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the SIR exercise, the Bench clarified that the Election Commission’s role is limited to preparing and revising electoral rolls and does not extend to deciding questions of citizenship.
“There is no confusion in law. The ECI has control and superintendence over the electoral roll. We explicitly clarified that exclusion or deletion from the voter list under the SIR does not equate to a loss of citizenship,” the Bench observed.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi further explained that if a Special Tribunal concludes that a person’s name cannot remain on the electoral roll, the Election Commission must refer the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which alone has the authority to determine citizenship under the Citizenship Act.
“The ECI can conduct only a limited inquiry to verify citizenship for the purpose of inclusion or deletion of a person from the electoral roll. It cannot legally or finally declare someone a non-citizen,” the court said.
The observations came after senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that many individuals whose names had been deleted from the electoral rolls were being denied essential welfare benefits despite their appeals remaining pending before Special Tribunals.
Highlighting the situation in West Bengal, the counsel informed the court that while only about 38,000 appeals had been decided, nearly 34 lakh appeals were still awaiting adjudication. He questioned how citizens could be deprived of welfare schemes when their cases had not reached a final conclusion.
Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court reiterated that deletion from the voters’ list, by itself, does not affect an individual’s citizenship status and cannot be used as a ground to deny benefits under public distribution systems, cash transfer schemes, or other government welfare programmes.
