PTI
New Delhi
The Election Commission on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it functions as the original authority in matters relating to electoral rolls and conduct of polls and its opinion is binding on the President if a person acquires citizenship of another country.
The panel submitted that the consequence of an adverse finding during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) would only be exclusion of the person’s name from the electoral roll and does “not ipso facto (by that very fact) result in deportation”, but it may be referred to the Centre for scrutiny and possible action under the Citizenship Act and related laws.
It also pointed out that in several regulatory frameworks, such as those governing mining leases or other statutory benefits, citizenship is a prerequisite and can be inquired into by the competent authority, countering the argument that the poll panel was exceeding its constitutional mandate.
The submissions were made by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi on behalf of the EC before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi which resumed final hearings on a batch of petitions that challenged the EC’s decision to undertake the SIR exercise in several states, including Bihar, raising significant constitutional questions on the scope of the poll panel’s powers, citizenship and the right
to vote.
The bench heard extensive submissions from Dwivedi, who defended the SIR exercise.
as being squarely within the constitutional and statutory mandate of the poll body and rejected the contention that it was a parallel citizenship-determination process similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
He submitted that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), acting under the EC’s supervision, is competent to conduct a limited inquisitorial inquiry for electoral purposes.
Dwivedi said in matters relating to elections, electoral rolls and the conduct of polls, the poll panel functions as the de facto (in reality) authority.
Referring to Section 146 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 146A to 146C, the senior lawyer submitted that Parliament has provided a detailed statutory mechanism empowering the EC to conduct hearings, take decisions and even exercise powers akin to those of a civil court for deciding questions relevant to electoral rolls.
“If a person acquires, or is alleged to have acquired, the citizenship of another country, it is ultimately the Election Commission which examines the issue for electoral purposes, and its opinion is binding on the President,” Dwivedi told the court, emphasising that such scrutiny is limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in the voter list.
He clarified that the consequence of an adverse finding during the SIR would only be exclusion of the person’s name from the electoral roll.
“It does not ipso facto result in deportation,” Dwivedi said, adding that in appropriate cases, the matter may be referred to the central government for scrutiny and possible action under the Citizenship Act, the Foreigners Act and related laws.
Explaining the interplay between different statutes, Dwivedi said that while the Citizenship Act, 1955, governs the acquisition and determination of citizenship, other enactments, including election laws, require authorities to examine citizenship for limited statutory purposes.
He pointed out that in several regulatory frameworks, such as those governing mining leases or other statutory benefits, citizenship is a prerequisite and can be inquired into by the competent authority.
Addressing concerns that the SIR exercise could amount to a parallel citizenship-determination process similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC), he said, “The electoral roll is fundamentally different from the NRC. The NRC includes all persons, whereas the electoral roll includes only citizens above the age of 18 who are otherwise qualified.”
