Name Deleted From Voter List? Citizenship Is Not Automatically Lost: Supreme Court
- pradeep
- 30 minutes ago
- 2 min read
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the deletion of a person’s name from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision process does not automatically result in the loss of Indian citizenship.
The Court clarified that the Election Commission of India has the authority to decide whether a person should remain on the voter list, but it does not have the constitutional power to determine or terminate citizenship. (Live Law)
Supreme Court Clarifies ECI’s Role
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana referred to its earlier Bihar SIR judgment while hearing a petition concerning people excluded from West Bengal’s electoral rolls.
Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI controls electoral rolls and may decide not to include a person. However, such exclusion does not, by itself, take away that person’s citizenship status. (Live Law)
Citizenship Must Be Decided Under the Law
The Court said that when a person is removed from the voter list over doubts about citizenship, the ECI has a corresponding duty to refer the matter to the Union government for adjudication under the Citizenship Act.
Until the competent authority takes a decision, the individual’s citizenship status must continue, the Bench observed. (Live Law)
Concerns Over Withdrawal of Welfare Benefits
The petition raised concerns that some people deleted from the electoral rolls in West Bengal were reportedly being denied welfare benefits, including Public Distribution System entitlements, Annapurna Yojana benefits and caste certificates.
The petitioner argued that such benefits were being withdrawn even while appeals against electoral-roll deletion remained pending. (Live Law)
Lakhs of Appeals Reportedly Pending
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the Court that around 34 lakh appeals were reportedly pending before 19 appellate tribunals, while only about 38,000 had been decided.
He further submitted that nearly 70% of the decided appeals had reportedly been allowed, highlighting the need for a faster and more transparent appellate process. (Live Law)
Petition Seeks Easier Appeal Process
The petition filed by Prasenjit Bose sought measures to make the appeal process more accessible for people whose names were deleted during the SIR exercise.
The requested measures included video-conference hearings, advance service of notices, multilingual guidance, time-bound disposal of appeals and publication of tribunal data and operating procedures. The Court listed the matter along with other petitions concerning the West Bengal SIR. (Live Law)
Comments