Making it to the final electoral rolls after negotiating the labyrinthine processes of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is no guarantee of citizenship, liberty or even peace of mind, especially, if you happen to be a Bangla-speaking follower of the Islamic faith, it seems. In August this year, a group of 23 migrant labourers from Murshidabad district of West Bengal, who went to Chhattisgarh in search of livelihood opportunities, were detained by the local police on suspicion of being Bangladeshis. Ironically, all of them had made it to the final voter lists at the end of the SIR in West Bengal. Subsequently, 19 were released on the orders of a Bilaspur civil court. The remaining four continue to languish in a detention centre because their names were deleted from the final voter list. Their appeals are pending before the tribunals set up on the directions of the Supreme Court. According to Justice Indrajit Chatterjee, who heads one such appellate tribunal, four out of every ten appeals against the inclusion of names in the final electoral rolls have been filed, not by private citizens or booth level agents of political parties, but by the state’s additional chief electoral officer (ACEO). Why the CEO’s office has challenged the outcome of its own ‘robust’ decision-making process is a mystery. Having taken up the case of those four labourers, last month, the Calcutta high court reportedly asked, whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) was “playing with the people,” implying why there was no finality to the “final electoral rolls”. The court is also said to have asked how the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) could make a decision about the citizenship status of the petitioners. Also read: The Supreme Court Has Called ECI’s Bluff on the Modified Form 6. Here’s How We Know This.This author asked similar questions under RTI about the outcome of the SIR completed first in Bihar and later in 12 states and Union Territories. The responses of the ECI and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reveal the ‘state of play’, vis-à-vis ‘ineligible persons’ who were targeted for deletion as part of the voter list shuddhikaran (purification) process. The point is nothing appears to have been done despite the directions of the Supreme Court to the ECI to refer such cases to the competent authority for citizenship adjudication. The MHA itself does not seem to know who is the authority competent to adjudicate such matters.Details of the context in which these RTI interventions were made and the responses received by the author are given below, for readers who wish to know more.The context of the RTI interventionsThe ECI provided the justification for launching the SIR in its order dated June 24, 2025. Although SIR was rolled out only in Bihar in the first phase, the omnibus nature of the ECI’s order is clear from para ten which reads as follows:“Therefore, the Commission has now decided to begin the Special Intensive Revision in the entire country for the discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls; However, since the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Bihar is expected in later part of this year, hence the Commission has decided to conduct Special Intensive Revision in the State of Bihar as per the Guidelines and schedule attached herewith. The schedule for the Special Intensive Revision in the rest of the country shall be issued separately in due course.” This omnibus order is included as an annexure in the instructions issued by the ECI for rolling out phase II and phase III of the SIR also. The paragraphs five-eight of this order contain the justification for initiating the SIR across the country as follows (See images one and two below):“5. Whereas, the preparation of electoral roll must ensure that all eligible citizens are included and no such eligible citizen is excluded from the electoral roll; Whereas, the Article 326 of the constitution stipulates that every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age on the qualifying date and is not otherwise disqualified under any law shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll; Whereas, the commission has noted that during the last 20 years significant change in electoral roll has taken place due to additions and deletions on a large scale over this long period. Rapid urbanisation and frequent migration of population from one place to another on account of education, livelihood and other reasons, have become a regular trend. Some electors obtain registration in one place and then shift their residence and register themselves at another place without getting their names deleted from the electoral roll of the initial place of residence. This has led to increased possibility of repeated entries in the electoral roll. Thus, the situation warrants an intensive verification drive to verify each person before enrolment as an Elector; Whereas, one of the fundamental pre-conditions set out in Article 326 of the constitution is that a person is required to be an Indian citizen, for his/her name to be registered in the electoral roll. Consequently, the commission has a constitutional obligation to ensure that only persons who are citizens; Images 1 and 2: Extracts from the ECI’s Omnibus SIR order dated June 24, 2025.Readers may kindly note, the last segment of para 8 stops mid-sentence. The omnibus order attached as an annexure to the instructions issued for SIR phases II and III (page number eight in both documents) contains the same dangling phrase. We are not certain, if this omnibus order was produced before the Supreme Court of India with this incomplete sentence, in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors., vs Election Commission of India & Ors. [neutral citation: 2026 INSC 564] where SIR’s legality was challenged. Be that as it may, in May 2026, the apex court upheld the omnibus SIR order and the accompanying instructions for rolling it out as a valid framework for achieving the objectives laid out by the ECI. The following paras extracted from the judgement are illustrative of the court’s justification for upholding the SIR’s constitutionality and legality:“In our considered view, the objective sought to be achieved by the Commission, namely, the restoration of accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral roll, is not only legitimate but is integral to the constitutional mandate entrusted to it. The reasons furnished by the Commission cannot be characterised as extraneous or illusory; they bear a direct and rational nexus to the core function of maintaining a credible electoral process. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the Impugned SIR is devoid of a legitimate purpose. On the contrary, the exercise is firmly anchored in both constitutional principle and statutory design.” (para 69)“… it must be recognised that the objective sought to be achieved in the instant case, namely, the maintenance of an accurate and credible electoral roll, is of foundational importance to the democratic process. The integrity of elections is inextricably linked to the correctness of the electoral roll, and any systemic distortion therein strikes at the very root of representative governance.” (para 89)“Section 16 of the RP Act explicitly disqualifies non-citizens from being registered in the electoral roll. The consequence of this provision is clear: Citizenship is a condition precedent for enrolment. The Commission, therefore, cannot discharge its obligation to maintain a valid electoral roll without satisfying itself that persons included therein meet this threshold requirement.” (para 173)“…Where the material furnished by an individual does not inspire confidence or give rise to doubt, the Commission is within its authority to decline enrolment or to initiate action for deletion, strictly in accordance with law…” (para 176) So, the Supreme Court agreed with the ECI’s primary objectives for launching the SIR, namely, that only such persons who are citizens of India and qualified to be voters must be enrolled as electors and those who are ineligible on account of not being able to prove to the ECI’s satisfaction that they are Indian citizens, must be removed or refused enrolment. Also read: The SIR Was an Attempt at Creating a Techno-Fascist State. Will the CEC’s Resignation End This Attempt?But the court also said that the ECI can determine the eligibility of an individual by seeking supportive documentation only for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not he/she may be enrolled as a voter under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The ultimate determination of the citizenship status of people left out of the voter lists, for the purposes of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was left to the ‘competent authority’. The relevant paras from the court’s judgement are reproduced below:“It must be acknowledged that the formal determination of citizenship, particularly where it entails adjudication of status or deprivation thereof, falls within the exclusive domain of the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act. There can be no dispute that such a determination cannot be undertaken by the Commission, whose powers are circumscribed by the constitutional and statutory framework governing electoral rolls.” (para 171)“…In our considered view, there is a clear and principled distinction between an adjudication of citizenship on the one hand, and an administrative satisfaction as to eligibility for enrolment on the other. The former involves a conclusive determination of status under the Citizenship Act; the latter is a limited enquiry undertaken for the purposes of electoral representation.” (para 174)“The consequence of such a determination is correspondingly limited. It affects the individual’s entitlement to be included in the electoral roll, and thereby their right to participate in the electoral process. It does not, however, operate to divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act.” (para 177)“Moreover, in cases where the Commission is not satisfied that a person meets the statutory conditions for inclusion in the electoral roll, it would be incumbent upon it to refer such an individual to the competent authority within the Central Government for adjudication in accordance with law. The Commission’s determination, being confined to electoral purposes, cannot assume finality on the question of citizenship. Any deletion effected on this ground shall, therefore, remain subject to the outcome of such adjudication by the appropriate authority.” (para 178)So, the apex court reasoned that the ECI can only decide whether or not a person must be enrolled or deleted from the voter list but the issue of determining whether or not such a person is a citizen of India as per the Citizenship Act, 1955 must be left to the ‘competent authority’. In this regard, towards the end of the judgement, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to do the following:“h. Regarding persons whose names have been deleted from the 2003 roll on account of the Commission being of the opinion that they are not citizens, the Commission shall refer such cases within 4 weeks to the Competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, for adjudication of their citizenship. The Competent Authority shall take the necessary decision in accordance with law, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, Local Body elections, whichever is earlier, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the deleted individuals, if any. In the event the Competent Authority holds that such deleted individuals are citizens, they shall be included in the electoral roll. In addition thereto, all persons who are domiciled in Bihar and whose names have been erroneously deleted on the ground that they are absent, dead, shifted or in duplication may assail the decision of the Commission by way of judicial review.” (para 186)In other words, the apex court placed a binding duty on the ECI to refer all cases of persons who in its opinion are not citizens, for the limited purpose of voting, within the specific time frame of four weeks to the ‘competent authority’ under the Citizenship Act, 1955.Purpose of the twin RTI InterventionsOn August 10, this author filed two RTI applications to ascertain compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. The first was submitted to the ECI and the second, to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs which is the administrative ministry for ensuring the Citizenship Act’s effective implementation. The purpose of the RTI interventions was two-fold:a) to probe whether the ECI had complied with the Court’s time-bound directions; andb) to find out from the MHA, who is the competent authority identified for adjudicating the citizenship status of persons referred to by the ECI and whether that process had begun at all.RTI intervention with the ECIAttaching the relevant extracts from the Supreme Court’s judgement, the following queries were posed to the ECI:“1) The total number of cases referred by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted on account of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in the State of Bihar, pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the court,2) The state-wise number of cases referred by the ECI to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted on account of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal,3) The Union Territory-wise number of cases referred by the ECI to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted on account of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry,4) Please provide the gender-wise number of all such cases from every State and Union Territory specified above, referred by the ECI to the respective competent authorities under the Citizenship Act, 1955 till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship, and5) A legible copy of every communication addressed by the ECI to the Union Government, till date, on the subject matter of adjudication of citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls in the States and Union Territories specified above.”After 50 days (against the statutory deadline of 30 days), its Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) replied (see Image 3 below) saying that it did not have any of the information sought in the RTI application. The CPIO also said that the information described in the first four queries, pertaining to numerical data of cases referred to the competent authority for adjudication from Bihar and the other 12 states and Union Territories where the SIR exercise had been completed might be available with the respective CEOs. He refused to transfer the RTI application to them, without explaining, why. Image 3: ECI’s first RTI reply.The CPIO’s reply clearly indicates that the ECI has not even bothered to collect the information about persons found ineligible to be enrolled as voters to comply with the Apex Court’s express and time-bound directions.RTI intervention with the MHAThe RTI intervention with the MHA, also made in August, attaching extracts from the Supreme Court’s judgement, contained the following queries:“1) The name and designation of the competent authority appointed under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for the purpose of adjudication of the citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted on account of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in the State of Bihar, pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the Hon. court,2) The total number of cases from the State of Bihar referred by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to the said competent authority till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship, pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the court,3) The name and designation of the competent authorities appointed under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for the purpose of adjudication of the citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted on account of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in the States of Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, and the Union Territories (UTs) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the court,4) The total number of cases from each of the States and UTs specified immediately above, referred by the ECI to the respective competent authorities till date, for the purpose of adjudication of citizenship, under the Citizenship Act, 1955, pursuant to the aforementioned directions of the court,5) Please provide the gender-wise number of all such cases referred to the respective competent authorities by the ECI in respect of every State and UT specified at paragraph nos. (2) and (4) above, and6) A legible copy of every communication received from the ECI till date, on the subject matter of adjudication of the citizenship of persons whose names have been deleted from the electoral rolls of the States and Union Territories specified above.”MHA transferred the RTI application to the legislative department of the Union law ministry on the same day it was filed. Two days later, the legislative department sent the RTI application to the ECI physically (because the ECI has its own RTI online facility and is not onboarded to the Union government’s RTI portal) washing its hands off the matter (see Image 5). In the reply, the CPIO had added the surname “Singh” to this author’s name indicating a copy-paste job from some other RTI reply, done poorly. Images 4 and 5: Transfers of the RTI application from MHA and the Legislative Department.The ECI replied to the RTI received from the legislative department, after 40 days (see Images 6 & 7 below). This time, another CPIO of the ECI transferred to the MHA, the queries pertaining to the competent authorities.Also read: ‘Was Ghosted’: Why Nisarga Adhikary Wrote to Election Commission and CERT-in in JulyQueries regarding the total number of cases from Bihar and the other 12 States and the UTs that the ECI ought to have referred to the MHA were all transferred to the CEO, Bihar. Strangely, query 6 in which copies of the ECI’s own communication sent to the MHA were sought, was also transferred to the MHA. Not only the ministries and departments but also a constitutional authority like the ECI have tied themselves up in knots answering these queries. What will the MHA and the CEO, Bihar do with the RTI queries transferred by the ECI remains to be seen. Images 6 and 7: ECI’s second RTI reply.The manner in which the ECI and the Union government departments have dealt with these RTIs raises several fundamental questions. First, why has the ECI not yet referred to the MHA, cases of ineligible persons struck off the voter lists in States and Union Territories where the SIR has been completed? The time limit for compliance was four weeks but more than four months have passed since the Apex Court’s directions were issued. Second, can the ECI even identify such cases with any degree of certainty at all? Many of us make the mistake of treating the 13 crore names reportedly deleted from the voter lists across the country, as the number of individuals who might have been disenfranchised. Common sense dictates this is too simplistic an inference because a large number of duplicates and deceased voters would have been eliminated in the course of the SIR causing hardly any harm to anybody. Amidst such a large number of deletions, is it possible to identify with any degree of certainty, the cases of provisionally non-citizens who belong to the ‘ineligible’ category? Third, did the ECI have any baseline data about this category of individuals before it made their purging from the electoral rolls as a primary objective of the SIR? Fourth, if it did not have any such data did the ECI allow itself to become a tool for implementing the political agenda encapsulated by the 3-D strategy of ‘detect delete and deport’ repeatedly tom-tomed by the leading lights of the NDA including Union Home Minister Amit Shah, both inside and outside Parliament?Fifth, before issuing the direction for referral of cases, did the Supreme Court ask the MHA, who would be the authority competent to adjudicate the citizenship status of persons identified by the ECI as ‘ineligible’ to be on the voter lists? Jurists and legal experts tell us that the orders and directions of courts must be implementable if they are to have any effect on circumstances in which the litigation was initiated. Unimplementable directions remain mere verbiage, denting the majesty of the court which issues them. Sixth, if the MHA had not identified such competent authorities prior to the issuance of the court’s directions, what are the reasons for the delay, that it does not have an answer to the specific RTI query even after four months? Is this why the ECI has not yet begun the process of collecting such cases from Bihar and other states and Union Territories? Will the apex court ask these tough questions in the days to come? We hope, the Youth movement and the opposition parties are taking note of these matters amidst their daily protests.Venkatesh Nayak is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. The author is grateful to C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, for the invaluable advice and guidance provided in relation to the RTI interventions. Unfortunately, like the author, he also finds his name deleted from the electoral rolls.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.