Context: Poll body defends SIR in the Supreme Court, insists it has power to verify citizenship status under the Constitution; it calls claims of the exercise being a ‘parallel NRC’ ‘rhetoric’, says roll revision counts only legal adults unlike citizenship register.
- The Election Commission of India (EC) began its defence of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court by dismissing claims that it is conducting a “parallel” National Register of Citizens (NRC) as sheer “rhetoric”.
- The poll body maintained that it has the “constitutional power, even a constitutional duty” to ensure that not a single foreigner, as far as possible, occupies space in the nation’s electoral rolls.
- The SIR kicked off in Bihar last year and expanded to cover 12 more States and Union Territories in the ongoing second phase.
- “We have a constitutional duty, and not just a constitutional power, to ensure no foreigners are there on the electoral rolls. It is not important how many foreigners are found… It was repeatedly asked of us to show how many foreigners were found in Bihar, but that is not important.
- Even if there was one foreigner, he had to be excluded. We are not concerned with the rhetoric of the political parties. They may be right or wrong. As the Election Commission, it is our constitutional duty to ensure there are no foreign voters as far as possible,” senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, clarified before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- Mr. Dwivedi said the comparison of the SIR with the NRC was devoid of truth.
Faulty comparison
- In the NRC, “all citizens”, even those of unsound mind, were tallied, the EC said. In the SIR, only those 18 years and above were counted. The EC differentiated between the NRC conducted in Assam and the “special revision” of electoral rolls underway in the State.
- The petitioners, who included Opposition parties and States, had argued that the SIR was merely a “citizenship drive” and a parallel NRC.
- “Of course, rhetorically it was said we are carrying out a ‘parallel’ NRC. The NRC register includes all the people, all citizens, whereas, in electoral rolls it is citizens who are above 18 years of age. Less than that they are not in the electoral roll. A person of unsound mind is excluded from the electoral roll, but is part of the NRC. Preparation of the electoral roll is not a parallel NRC on the face of it,” Mr. Dwivedi contended.
- The senior counsel argued that it was for the Centre to issue a ‘national identity card’ and maintain a ‘National Register of Indian Citizens’ and, for that purpose, establish a National Registration Authority under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. On the other hand, the EC drew its power to verify citizenship for the “preparation of the electoral rolls” under Article 324 of the Constitution.
Citizenship status
- “All the important functionaries of the three organs of governance have to be citizens of India, be it the President, Vice-President, MPs, MLAs, or judges of the constitutional courts… No person is eligible to participate in the electoral process unless he is a citizen,” Mr. Dwivedi said.
- Addressing the petitioners’ submission that citizenship was exclusively the domain of the Union government, the EC counsel pointed to Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. “The Central government has exclusive jurisdiction only with termination of citizenship on account of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship under this provision,” Mr. Dwivedi submitted.
- He said the EC was not foreclosed from “deviating” while revising electoral rolls, provided it recorded the reasons. In SIR 2025, the reasons included rapid urbanisation and migration with an eye to preserving the purity of the electoral rolls.
Source: The Hindu