NEW DELHI: The Election Commission on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it has both the power and constitutional competence to carry out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that it is duty-bound to ensure that no foreigners are included in voter lists.The submissions were made by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.The bench resumed final hearings in a batch of petitions challenging the EC’s decision to undertake the SIR exercise in several states, including Bihar. The petitions raise constitutional questions on the scope of the poll panel’s powers, citizenship, and the right to vote.Dwivedi argued that the Constitution makes citizenship a foundational requirement for holding public office. Citing provisions such as Article 124(3), which governs the appointment of Supreme Court and high court judges, he said all key constitutional functionaries across the three organs of the State must be Indian citizens.He added that citizenship is also a prerequisite for holding offices such as president, vice president and prime minister.“All vital appointments … no appointments can be made unless the person is a citizen, so our Constitution is citizen-centric predominantly,” Dwivedi said, according to news agency PTI.Referring to the constitutional scheme, he said, “The (constitutional) article, when it says citizens, that is something which has to be inquired by the competent authority. What should be the nature, summary etc., that is a different question…. There is a constitutional duty to ensure that on the electoral roll, there should not be any foreigners.”Dwivedi told the court that the Election Commission cannot be expected to respond to political rhetoric.“I am not commenting on the political parties, as the Election Commission, our duty is that no foreigner should be there…. It is to be seen that the power is there and the competence is there,” he said.Resuming his arguments, Dwivedi framed what he described as the central constitutional issue: whether Article 324, which grants the EC powers of superintendence, direction and control over elections, is completely displaced by statutory provisions or whether its application must be examined on a case-by-case basis.He submitted that Articles 324, 325 and 326 of the Constitution, read together with Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, do not bar the EC from exercising its authority in revising electoral rolls.“The field is not totally foreclosed,” he said, asserting that the Commission retains constitutional competence to ensure the purity of voter lists.Tracing the evolution of voting rights, Dwivedi took the bench through colonial-era electoral practices, beginning with the introduction of separate communal electorates in 1909 and the limited franchise under the Government of India Acts, when only about 15 per cent of the population had voting rights. He argued that the expansion of the franchise was a central goal of India’s freedom struggle.“Not only Article 326, but the entire Constitution, when it speaks of a democratic republic, reflects an intention to create a citizen-centric polity,” he said.Addressing concerns that the SIR exercise could resemble a parallel citizenship determination similar to the National Register of Citizens (NRC), Dwivedi stressed that the two serve fundamentally different purposes.“The NRC includes all persons, whereas the electoral roll includes only citizens above the age of 18,” he said, adding that persons of unsound mind or otherwise disqualified are also excluded from voter lists.“On the face of it, the electoral roll is not like the NRC,” he said, reiterating that Article 326 permits only citizens to vote and that citizenship must be determined by a competent authority.Even if “10 or thousands” of foreigners are found on the electoral rolls, they must be removed, Dwivedi said, clarifying that the EC is not making political judgments but fulfilling its constitutional obligation.The senior advocate is scheduled to resume his arguments on Thursday, January 8.Earlier, the bench had questioned whether the EC is barred from conducting inquiries in cases of doubtful citizenship and whether such an inquisitorial process falls outside its constitutional mandate.
