Can Election Commission exclude voters from rolls even before Centre takes a call on citizenship, SC asks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13, 2026) asked the Election Commission whether an Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO) decision to strike a person off the electoral rolls after an “inquisitorial” enquiry into his citizenship under the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise could be referred to by the Centre to commence an investigation into the individual’s right to remain in India or be deported.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, questioned whether EROs could exclude a person from the electoral rolls even before the Centre took a final call to “strip him of the colour of citizenship”.

The questions from the court gained significance as draft electoral rolls published in nine States and three Union Territories, including West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, witnessed the deletion of nearly 6.5 crore names in the second phase of the SIR process.

The queries from the Bench followed submissions made by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi that Article 326 (the right of adult Indian citizens to vote), the Representation of the People Act, and the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960 collectively empower the EC, through the EROs, with competence to conduct an inquisitorial enquiry into citizenship for specific purposes.

He (ERO) can enquire. But after he records a finding, is it required under the scheme of Citizenship Act that his finding be referred for an appropriate decision and steps by the Central government? And till then… can you take away his right till a decision is taken by the Central government stripping him of the colour of citizenship?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Mr. Dwivedi said a decision has to be taken “then and there”.

“The consequence the other way would be that even though the ERO has found that he is not a citizen, he would continue in the electoral roll and vote. Once a shadow is cast on his citizenship, as long as it is not perverse or arbitrary, he needs to stand out. Nothing is perfect, but we have to chase the utopia of perfection as closely as possible,” Mr. Dwivedi responded.

The senior counsel said persons excluded from the electoral roll under the SIR had the right to appeal.

“These things happen. The whole electoral exercise cannot be halted or modified for the sake of some persons. Of course, if the order [of exclusion] is perverse on individual facts, it would have to go. We are not entitled to wait until the final or ultimate decision [by the Centre], which may go one way or the other. There is, in the meanwhile, enough safeguards. He can file an appeal, and if the ERO order is set aside, he can be put back. These are normal processes of law,” Mr. Dwivedi submitted.

“Your argument is that non-citizens are not entitled?” Chief Justice Kant queried.

Mr. Dwivedi said the EC was entitled to verify citizenship for the purpose of inclusion in the electoral rolls. It was for the Centre to decide if a person would stay on in India or be deported.

“It is not that a decision of the EC ipso facto leads to deportation. That is for the Centre to undertake,” the EC counsel reasoned.

He said citizenship and delimitations were the cornerstones of electoral process,

Mr. Dwivedi said various statutes, including the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, mandated citizenship from applicants. Mr. Dwivedi said a person had to be a citizen even to get a mining lease and authorities were entitled to verify his citizenship claim.