New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13) questioned if the Election Commission’s enquiry into citizenship during electoral roll revisions could trigger Union government proceedings for the deportation of individuals.A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. The court’s queries were directed at whether an Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO) decision to strike a person off the rolls after an “inquisitorial” enquiry could be referred to the Union government to begin an investigation into the individual’s right to remain in India.Justice Bagchi questioned whether EROs could exclude a person from the electoral rolls even before the Union government took a final call to “strip him of the colour of citizenship.” The bench noted that draft electoral rolls in nine States and three Union Territories, including West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, saw the deletion of nearly 6.5 crore names during the second phase of the SIR.“He [the ERO] can enquire. But after he records a finding, is it required under the scheme of the 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.Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission (EC), submitted that a decision must be taken “then and there.”Dwivedi argued: “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.”The senior counsel stated that those excluded under the SIR retained the right to appeal. He submitted that the electoral process could not be halted for the sake of some individuals. “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,” Dwivedi added.Chief Justice Kant queried: “Your argument is that non-citizens are not entitled?”Dwivedi responded that while the EC verifies citizenship for inclusion in the rolls, the decision on whether a person stays in India or is deported remains the exclusive domain of the Union government. “It is not that a decision of the EC ipso facto leads to deportation. That is for the Centre to undertake,” he reasoned.During the hearing, Dwivedi cited Constituent Assembly debates, arguing that citizenship and delimitations are the “cornerstones” of the electoral process. Referring to the 2005 Sarbananda Sonowal judgment, he noted that Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act gives the Union government exclusive jurisdiction only when a person voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship. In other instances, he argued, there is no bar on other authorities or courts verifying citizenship claims.When Justice Bagchi observed that the grant of Indian citizenship had become more stringent over the years, Dwivedi submitted that the Constituent Assembly held the opinion that citizenship should not come “cheap,” and that the SIR was aligned with this intent.Addressing the transitionary nature of the Constitution, CJI Kant observed that Articles 5, 6, and 7 reflected a “peculiar situation” where people were still deciding where to stay post-Independence. He noted that Article 10 reflected a more settled period.Previous proceedingsEarlier, on January 6, the EC defended the SIR against allegations that it was conducting a “parallel” National Register of Citizens (NRC). Dwivedi dismissed such descriptions as “rhetoric,” stating the EC has a “constitutional duty” to ensure no foreigners occupy space in the electoral rolls.The poll body’s submissions coincided with the publication of the draft voter list in Uttar Pradesh, where nearly three crore names were deleted from a total of 15.44 crore registered voters.“We are not concerned with the rhetoric of the political parties. They may be right or wrong. As the Election Commission, it is our constitutional duty to ensure there are no foreign voters as far as possible,” Dwivedi had submitted.The EC argued that the SIR differs from the NRC as it only includes citizens aged 18 and above, whereas the NRC tallies all citizens, including those of unsound mind. Dwivedi stated that while the Centre maintains the National Register of Indian Citizens under Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, the EC draws its power to verify citizenship for the preparation of rolls under Article 324 of the Constitution.The senior counsel further noted that the Constitution is “citizen-centric,” requiring all major functionaries—including the President, MPs, MLAs, and judges—to be Indian citizens.The court is scheduled to continue the hearing on Thursday (January 15).