By Sanjay Raman Sinha
In a swift and politically charged move, Tamil Nadu’s ruling party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), backed by 44 parties, has mounted a legal challenge against the Election Commission of India (ECI), questioning the constitutional validity of the electoral rolls in 12 states. The development dovetails with the ECI’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise—a process designed to cleanse and update voter lists, but now mired in controversy.
Adding fuel to the fire, a day before the first phase of polling in Bihar, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi detonated what he called a “hydrogen bomb,” alleging rampant bogus voting in Haryana. His charge has sharpened the political divide at a time when trust in electoral processes is already under scrutiny.
THE LEGAL CROSSROADS
At the heart of the storm lies a simple, but explosive question: Can the Election Commission verify citizenship as part of its mandate to maintain clean electoral rolls?
In their petition before the Supreme Court, the DMK and its allies have framed six key concerns:
- Constitutional Validity: They argue that the SIR infringes on fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Procedural Overreach: The requirement for voters to prove citizenship and produce documents, they claim, is excessive and arbitrary.
- Jurisdictional Limits: The SIR, they contend, amounts to a “citizenship screening,” a function outside the ECI’s domain.
- Lack of Legal Backing: The SIR process finds no mention in the 1960 Registration Rules, raising questions about its statutory legitimacy.
- Arbitrary Exclusion: The documentation process could lead to disenfranchisement of marginalized citizens.
- Federal Tension: With several states resisting the ECI’s directives, the confrontation risks escalating into a constitutional crisis.
The petitioners insist that only tribunals established under the Citizenship Act (1955) and Foreigners Act (1946) have the authority to determine citizenship—not the Election Commission or its Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). The SIR, they argue, effectively turns EROs into quasi-judicial bodies, capable of conducting “mini-trials” that could deprive citizens of their voting rights.
ECI’S DEFENCE: THE ARTICLE 324 SHIELD
For the Election Commission, the defence rests squarely on Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it “superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls.” This provision, it argues, gives the ECI plenary authority to act where the law is silent.
Citing the landmark Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner (1977) judgment, the ECI maintains that Article 324 serves as a “reservoir of power,” enabling the Commission to act in any legal vacuum to safeguard electoral purity.
“The Election Commission is simply fulfilling its constitutional duties,” said TS Krishnamurthy, former Chief Election Commissioner, while speaking to India Legal. “What’s crucial is that institutions must be allowed to function smoothly and within constitutional bounds. If states refuse to cooperate, we risk a breakdown of constitutional machinery,” he added.
According to the Commission, the SIR is not about adjudicating citizenship, but enforcing Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act (1950), which bars non-citizens from being registered as voters. The exercise, the ECI insists, is an administrative process designed to maintain the sanctity of the electoral rolls—especially amid growing allegations of “bogus” entries and double registrations.
DATA, DEMOCRACY AND DUE PROCESS
Experts, however, warn against turning a technical data-verification process into a political battlefield. Sunil Sinha, former Director Deneral and CEO of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), notes that citizenship verification should be treated with scientific rigour, not political passion. “Parliament has emphasized the need to ensure purity in the citizen’s vote,” Sinha said. “But there must be an objective, data-driven approach. The process should prevent duplication, not create fear of exclusion,” he added.
This argument feeds directly into the challenge under Article 14—the right to equality. The petitioners say the SIR is arbitrary on two counts: first, it selectively targets 12 states; and second, it reverses the burden of proof by forcing citizens to establish their eligibility instead of the state proving ineligibility.
A FEDERAL FLASHPOINT
The controversy has deepened fault lines between the centre and states. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have openly defied the ECI’s directives, calling the SIR an encroachment on state rights. If non-cooperation continues, legal experts warn, the confrontation could escalate into a constitutional stand-off, potentially invoking Article 356, which allows for President’s Rule in case of breakdown of governance.
What began as a procedural exercise to update voter rolls has thus become a test of India’s federal balance, institutional credibility, and democratic resilience.
AWAITING THE COURT’S WORD
The Supreme Court now faces the delicate task of balancing two imperatives: the ECI’s constitutional mandate to ensure free and fair elections, and citizens’ fundamental right to equality and due process. The verdict will define the contours of electoral power in India for decades to come.
If the Court upholds the SIR, the ECI’s authority will be vastly strengthened. If it strikes it down, it will reaffirm that citizenship verification lies beyond the ECI’s reach. Either way, the judgment will shape the architecture of Indian democracy itself. As one constitutional expert put it, “When trust in the electoral roll erodes, democracy itself stands on shaky ground.”