The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission (EC) falls within its constitutional powers. The court noted that the processes involved in the SIR provided adequate safeguards, procedural fairness, and mechanisms for individuals whose names had been removed from the electoral lists. However, it clarified that the SIR is not intended as a process for determining citizenship status.

The ruling emphasised that the duties of the EC are limited to assessing a person’s eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls. The court made it clear that this process should not be viewed as a definitive measure of citizenship. Consequently, the decision raises substantial concerns regarding the status of numerous voters whose names were deleted during this revision.

Mechanisms for Deleted Voters’ Claims

The SIR includes provisions for claims and objections, allowing those whose names are missing from the draft rolls the opportunity to file claims and provide documentation to the Electoral Roll District Magistrate (ERDM) prior to the final list’s publication. In regions where the SIR has concluded, significant numbers of claims have already been processed. Notably in West Bengal, the Supreme Court established a special appeals mechanism, appointing retired High Court judges to adjudicate over 34 lakh claims related to voter verification.

As the state prepared for elections, over 1,600 names were reinstated to the voter list, while as of May 14, around 4,043 appeals had been accepted by legal tribunals, with ongoing adjudication processes. These developments illustrate the complexities surrounding voter registration and the resolutions available to those impacted.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court instructed the EC to refer deleted names based on suspected citizenship issues to the appropriate authority within a four-week timeframe. This raises queries regarding the identification of this authority within the broader context of citizenship verification in India.

Role of the Ministry of Home Affairs

Under current Indian law, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is designated as the competent authority to assess citizenship matters. Citizenship can be acquired through various means including birth, descent, and naturalisation. Individuals born in India between certain dates automatically acquire citizenship, while those born of Indian citizen parents outside of India can claim citizenship through descent.

For individuals born after a specified date, citizenship by birth requires both parents to be Indian citizens at the time of birth, or one citizen parent and the other not being an illegal migrant. Naturalisation is an option for foreigners who meet particular residency requirements. The MHA takes into account relevant documentation such as birth certificates and school records when verifying citizenship status.

The MHA employs mechanisms to certify citizenship claims and has previously issued certificates verifying an individual’s status as a bona fide citizen. For individuals referred to the MHA by the EC, the documentation they present will undergo scrutiny to ascertain their citizenship claims, emphasising the procedural integrity required in these cases.

Before the implementation of the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) framework in 2004, there had been little precedent for mass citizenship verifications of individuals alleged to be illegal immigrants. Existing procedures typically involve local police and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) managing such cases. The complexities of these procedural frameworks highlight issues that have emerged in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Future Steps for Deleted Voters

The deletion of lakhs of names from the electoral rolls has led to significant uncertainty regarding the next steps for these individuals. It remains to be seen how the MHA will handle verification and whether additional Foreigners Tribunals will be established to address the matter. Such developments will likely shape the landscape of citizenship verification in India going forward.

Reportedly, the existence of over 100 foreigner tribunals, primarily set up in Assam during prior NRC processes, adds another layer of complexity to the current situation. As of December 2020, more than 1,40,050 cases awaited resolution in these tribunals, illustrating the backlog present even before the recent Supreme Court directive.

The fate of individuals classified as foreigners is also a pressing concern, as they face the apprehension of being stripped of various rights and benefits while their citizenship claims are adjudicated. This situation necessitates careful management by both the MHA and affiliated authorities to ensure fairness and legality in citizenship verification procedures.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share