The Supreme Court on Friday orally reiterated that deletion of a person’s name from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise did not result in the loss of Indian citizenship, stressing that powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) were confined to maintaining electoral rolls and did not extend to determining citizenship.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order on a petition seeking directions to make the appellate process for persons excluded from electoral rolls under the SIR exercise more transparent and accessible.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that nearly 34 lakh appeals remain pending before 19 Appellate Tribunals, two of whose members have resigned. He informed the Court that only around 38,000 appeals have been decided so far, with nearly 70 per cent resulting in restoration of names to the electoral rolls.
The petitioner alleged that while these appeals remain pending, the West Bengal government has begun denying benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS), Annapurna Yojana and even caste certificates to persons whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls.
Referring to its earlier verdict in the Bihar SIR matter, the Apex Court observed that exclusion from the electoral roll could not automatically deprive a person of citizenship since the power to take the final call on a person’s citizenship status remained with the Central government, and not the ECI.
Sankaranarayanan, however, argued that despite the Court’s earlier ruling, authorities on the ground were treating deletion from the electoral roll as equivalent to loss of citizenship by withholding welfare benefits from affected individuals while their appeals remained pending. He contended that with over 33.5 lakh appeals yet to be decided, lakhs of people continue to suffer deprivation of essential benefits despite the fact that the existing disposal rate indicates a substantial number of appeals ultimately succeed.
The Senior Counsel urged the Court to put in place mechanisms ensuring greater accountability and transparency in the functioning of the Appellate Tribunals. He also submitted that possession of documents such as a valid Indian passport should ordinarily be treated as strong evidence of citizenship. The Bench ultimately directed that the matter be listed along with the batch of petitions challenging the West Bengal SIR exercise.
The petition sought a series of directions to streamline the appellate mechanism for persons whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls. Among other reliefs, it sought the permission for virtual hearings before Appellate Tribunals, mandatory service of hearing notices at least seven days in advance through both electronic and physical modes, and a time-bound schedule for disposal of all appeals before the next election.
It also sought preparation of simplified guides to the appellate process in Bangla, Hindi and English, permission for appeals arising from all stages of the SIR exercise, and disclosure of constituency-wise data relating to applications for inclusion and deletion of names, pending appeals and other electoral roll statistics.
Additionally, the petitioner sought publication of the Standard Operating Procedure framed by a three-member judicial committee in April 2026, as well as periodic public bulletins indicating the number of appeals heard and decided by the Appellate Tribunals.
The post Deletion from electoral rolls does not amount to loss of citizenship: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.