Voters check their names in the draft electoral rolls of West Bengal at Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur on December 16, 2025. | Photo credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13, 2026) asked the Election Commission whether the decision of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to strike off a person from the electoral rolls after an “inquisitorial” inquiry into his citizenship under the Special Intensive Review (SIR) exercise can direct the Center to launch an inquiry into the right to deport an individual in India.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, questioned whether the ERO could exclude a person from the electoral rolls even before the Center had last called to “remove the color of citizenship”.
The court’s questions assumed significance as the draft electoral rolls released in nine states and three union territories, including West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, saw deletion of nearly 6.5 million names in the second phase of the SIR process.
The queries from the Bench followed a submission by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that Article 326 (right of adult Indian citizens to vote), the Representation of the People Act and the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960 together empower the EC through the ERO to conduct inquisitorial inquiries into citizenship for specific purposes.
He (ERO) can ask questions. But after he records the finding, is the scheme of the Citizenship Act required that his finding be referred to the appropriate decision and action of the Central Government? And until then… can you disenfranchise him until the central government decides to strip him of the color of citizenship? Judge Bagchi asked.
Mr Dwivedi said a decision had to be taken “then and there”.
“Otherwise the ERO would find out that he is not a citizen, he would continue to register and vote. Once a shadow is cast on his citizenship, if it is not perverse or arbitrary, he needs to stand out. Nothing is perfect, but we must pursue the utopia of perfection as precisely as possible,” responded Mr. Dwivedi.
The senior counsel said that persons excluded from the electoral roll under the SIR have the right to appeal.
“This is what happens. The entire election exercise cannot be stopped or modified because of some persons. Of course, if the order (of disqualification) is reversed on individual facts, it would have to go. We are not entitled to wait for the final or final decision (of the Centre) which may be one way or the other. In the meantime, there are enough safeguards. He can bring back the ERO order, it is normal and as far as appeal is concerned. law,” added Mr Dwivedi.
“Your argument is that non-citizens are not eligible?” Chief Justice Kant asked.
Mr Dwivedi said the EC is empowered to verify citizenship for inclusion in electoral rolls. It was up to the Center to decide whether the person would remain in India or be deported.
“It is not the case that the decision of the EC ipso facto leads to deportation. That is up to the center,” reasoned the legal representative of the EC.
He said that citizenship and delimitation are the cornerstones of the electoral process,
Mr. Dwivedi said various laws, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act mandate citizenship for applicants. Mr. Dwivedi said a person must be a citizen even if he wants to obtain a mining lease and the authorities are empowered to verify his citizenship claim.
Published – 13 Jan 2026 21:54 IST
