New Delhi: During the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across states, the Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Supreme Court yesterday that the Indian Constitution is “citizen-centric.” The ECI emphasised that it is its constitutional duty to ensure that no foreigners are included in the electoral rolls. It also stated that it is not concerned with the “rhetoric” circulated by political parties on the matter.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission of India, began his arguments yesterday. At the outset, Dwivedi submitted that Articles 323, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, read together with Sections 15, 16, 19, and Section 21(2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, do not restrict the ECI’s authority to exercise its powers in the revision of electoral rolls.
He added, “On the contrary, the rules explicitly allow the ECI to deviate, provided reasons are recorded. The extent of such deviation may be a separate issue, but the scope is not entirely closed.” He further stated, “Our entire Constitution, in establishing a democratic republic, was intended to be citizen-centric.”
To support his argument, Dwivedi cited key constitutional provisions that make citizenship a mandatory requirement for appointments across the three branches of government, including the offices of the President, Vice President, Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assemblies, and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
In this context, he referred to the grounds for disqualification of a Member of Parliament under Article 102(d), which states that an MP can be disqualified “if he is not a citizen of India, has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or owes any allegiance or adherence to a foreign State.” Dwivedi also cited Article 103, noting that the final decision on disqualification by the President is made based on the opinion provided by the Election Commission of India.
He reiterated, “All key appointments, none can be made unless the person is a citizen—show that our Constitution is predominantly citizen-centric.” Expanding on this, he added that the term “citizens” under Article 326 must be determined by the competent authority, which makes it the constitutional duty of the Election Commission of India to ensure that no foreigners are included in the electoral roll.
Dwivedi also referred to the Constituent Assembly debates, noting that Indians had opposed separate electorates for Europeans, arguing that colonizers should not have a say in the formation of India’s Constitution.
Drawing from this, Dwivedi stated, “Article 326, when it refers to ‘citizens,’ requires inquiry by the competent authority. The nature of that inquiry, whether summary or detailed, is a separate question, but the competence itself is a constitutional duty. The ECI must ensure that no foreigners are included in the electoral roll, whether it is one, ten, or thousands.”
He clarified that the Commission is not concerned with political “rhetoric” and is focused solely on fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. “As the ECI, we are not concerned with what political parties say or the extreme positions they may take. Our duty is to ensure that no eligible voter is left out. Perfection is the goal, though rarely fully achieved in any field,” he said.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the current SIR resembles a parallel NRC, Dwivedi rejected the comparison. “It has been said that we are carrying out a parallel NRC, but that is rhetorical. The NRC includes all people in India, whereas the electoral roll only includes citizens above 18 years of age. Persons below 18 are excluded. Similarly, a citizen of unsound mind is excluded from the electoral roll but remains part of the NRC. Electoral roll preparation, therefore, is not a parallel NRC, except rhetorically, as in Assam, where the NRC was previously conducted,” he explained. The bench will continue hearing the matter on January 8.
