ECI Electoral Roll Revision and the Supreme Court Debate on Citizenship and Voting Rights

The Election Commission of India has made a clear and forceful case before the Supreme Court on why it is carrying out the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. In a key hearing last week, the Commission said that the ECI electoral roll revision is not a political exercise, nor an attempt to recreate the National Register of Citizens, but a constitutional obligation rooted in the very idea of citizenship.

Arguing before the court, counsel for the ECI told the bench that “citizenship is at the core of the electoral exercise” and that the Commission has a “constitutional duty” to ensure that only Indian citizens remain on the voters’ list. The Commission also rejected comparisons between the Special Intensive Revision, commonly called SIR, and the NRC as “just rhetoric”.

The hearing comes amid growing legal and political debate about how far the Election Commission can go in cleaning up electoral rolls and what safeguards are in place to protect legitimate voters from being wrongly excluded.

At the centre of the dispute is a fundamental question. Who gets to decide who is entitled to vote in the world’s largest democracy and on what basis?

What the Special Intensive Revision is and why it matters

The Special Intensive Revision is a nationwide exercise launched by the Election Commission to update and verify electoral rolls. Unlike routine revisions that happen every year, the SIR involves a more detailed check of entries in the voters’ list, including the verification of addresses, duplication of entries, and the status of voters who may have shifted, died, or become ineligible.

According to the ECI, the ECI electoral roll revision is aimed at making the rolls more accurate and trustworthy. The Commission has said that inflated or inaccurate voter lists undermine free and fair elections, especially in a country with over 90 crore registered voters.

The problem the ECI is trying to address is not new. Electoral rolls across India often contain:

• Names of people who have died but are still listed

• Duplicate entries across constituencies

• Voters who have shifted but not updated their address

• In rare cases, non-citizens who have been mistakenly enrolled

The Commission has argued that these inaccuracies distort the democratic process and can be exploited for electoral fraud.

By launching a Special Intensive Revision, the ECI says it is using its constitutional authority to restore the integrity of the electoral rolls.

Why the case reached the Supreme Court

Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the SIR is being carried out. Petitioners have raised concerns that the exercise could lead to large-scale deletion of names without proper notice or opportunity to be heard.

Some petitioners have also drawn parallels between the ECI electoral roll revision and the National Register of Citizens, especially the NRC exercise carried out in Assam, which left many people facing uncertainty over their citizenship.

The fear expressed in court is that voters, particularly those from migrant, poor, or marginalised backgrounds, could be required to prove their citizenship or residency in ways that are difficult for them to comply with.

In response, the Election Commission has firmly denied that the SIR is a backdoor NRC.

ECI invokes Articles 324 and 327 of the Constitution

One of the most important parts of the hearing was the Election Commission’s reliance on Articles 324 and 327 of the Constitution.

Article 324 vests the Election Commission with the power of “superintendence, direction and control” over the conduct of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice President.

Article 327 allows Parliament to make laws regarding all matters relating to elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls.

Together, these two provisions form the constitutional backbone of the ECI electoral roll revision.

Counsel for the ECI told the court that these articles do not merely allow the Commission to maintain electoral rolls. They impose a duty to ensure that only those who are legally entitled to vote are included.

This is where the Commission’s statement that “citizenship is at the core of the electoral exercise” becomes legally significant. Voting rights in India are tied to citizenship. Non-citizens, even if they live in India for many years, have no constitutional right to be on the voters’ list.

From the ECI’s perspective, allowing non-citizens to remain on the rolls would be a violation of the Constitution.

Why the ECI rejects the NRC comparison

One of the strongest points made by the Election Commission in court was its rejection of the SIR being equated with the NRC.

The NRC was an exercise aimed at identifying and documenting Indian citizens in a particular state. It involved placing the burden of proof on individuals to establish their citizenship.

The ECI electoral roll revision, according to the Commission, is very different.

The ECI told the Supreme Court that SIR is not about declaring anyone a foreigner. It is about maintaining a clean and accurate voters’ list. The process focuses on electoral eligibility, not citizenship adjudication.

The Commission described the NRC analogy as “just rhetoric” meant to create fear and confusion.

In simple terms, the ECI is saying that even if someone’s name is removed from the voters’ list during SIR, that does not mean the person has been declared a foreigner. It only means they are not on the electoral roll until their eligibility is verified.

How electoral rolls are supposed to work under the law

Under Indian law, electoral rolls are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and related rules. These laws lay down:

• Who is eligible to be registered as a voter

• How electoral rolls are prepared and revised

• How objections and claims are handled

The Election Commission prepares the rolls, but individuals have the right to:

• Apply for inclusion

• Object to wrongful inclusion

• Seek correction of errors

• Appeal against deletion

The ECI has argued that the ECI electoral roll revision follows these statutory safeguards. According to the Commission, no name can be removed without due process, which includes notice and an opportunity to be heard.

This is one of the key issues before the Supreme Court. The court is examining whether the safeguards on paper are being effectively applied on the ground.

The political and constitutional sensitivity of voter lists

Voter lists are not just administrative documents. They are at the heart of India’s democratic system. Who appears on the electoral roll decides who gets a voice in choosing governments.

That is why the ECI electoral roll revision has drawn such intense scrutiny.

On one hand, an inflated or inaccurate roll can allow bogus voting, impersonation, and manipulation. On the other hand, wrongful deletion of names can disenfranchise genuine citizens.

The Election Commission’s position is that accuracy and inclusiveness are not opposing goals. In its view, a clean roll that includes only eligible citizens is the only way to protect democracy.

The petitioners, however, worry that the process may tilt too heavily towards exclusion, especially in areas with high migration or poor documentation.

What the Supreme Court is being asked to decide

The Supreme Court is not being asked to run the electoral rolls. What it is being asked to do is to ensure that the constitutional and legal limits on the Election Commission’s powers are respected.

At a broad level, the court is looking at three questions:

• Does the Election Commission have the power to carry out the Special Intensive Revision in the manner it is doing?

• Are adequate safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary or wrongful deletion of voters?

• Is the SIR being used in a way that indirectly forces people to prove their citizenship?

The ECI’s argument based on Articles 324 and 327 is meant to show that its actions fall squarely within its constitutional mandate.

Why does this debate go beyond one revision exercise

Even though the current case is about the Special Intensive Revision, the outcome will have long-term consequences for how electoral rolls are maintained in India.

If the Supreme Court upholds the ECI’s broad interpretation of its powers, future ECI electoral roll revision exercises could become more rigorous and more centralised.

If the court imposes stricter limits or additional procedural safeguards, the ECI may have to redesign how it conducts such revisions.

Either way, the case will shape the balance between electoral integrity and voter protection for years to come.

Where things stand now

For now, the Election Commission continues to defend the Special Intensive Revision as a routine but necessary exercise rooted in the Constitution.

By telling the Supreme Court that “citizenship is at the core of the electoral exercise,” the ECI has framed the issue in the strongest constitutional terms possible.

The court’s response will determine whether that framing is accepted or whether the process must be recalibrated to address fears of exclusion.

As India moves closer to future elections, the outcome of this case will decide not just how voter lists are cleaned up, but also how the country defines the relationship between citizenship and the right to vote.