4 months ago
2
The Supreme Court connected Thursday (January 22, 2026) questioned whether the Election Commission of India had “clearly and eloquently” cited illegal, cross-border migration arsenic a crushed for holding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and verifying citizenship of registered voters.
The query from the Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi came adjacent arsenic astir 6.5 crore names were removed from draught electoral rolls published by the canvass assemblage successful 9 States and 3 Union Territories. Around 3.26 crore voters successful Uttar Pradesh, 1 of the 9 States wherever the 2nd signifier of the SIR was done, received notices asking them to be hearings and amusement citizenship credentials.
Senior advocator Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Commission, argued that the canvass assemblage was authorised to verify citizenship nether Article 324 of the Constitution. Article 326 made citizenship mandatory for a idiosyncratic to vote. He referred to the amendments made successful the Citizenship Act successful 2003, which made conditions for citizenship much stringent, requiring some parents of electors to beryllium Indian citizens. The conception of ‘illegal immigrant’ was introduced successful the 2003 amendment.
But Justice Bagchi said the canvass assemblage had listed lone “frequent migration” arsenic 1 of the reasons for holding the SIR. “Was the request of introspection of citizenship successful airy of 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act a trigger to clasp the SIR successful 2025? If so, that trigger does not person an eloquent look successful the SIR notification,” Justice Bagchi observed.
Mr. Dwivedi agreed that the crushed of “illegal migration” could person been expressed “more clearly, much happily”.
Justice Bagchi said by ‘migration’ successful the SIR notification, the canvass assemblage seemed to person been referring much to inter-State migration and not cross-border amerciable movement. Verification of citizenship was not precisely needed if an elector had lone moved from 1 State to different wrong the country.
Mr. Dwivedi responded that the word ‘migration’ would subsume some inter-State and trans-border movement. “We could person said ‘inter-State migration’, ‘intra-State migration’, ‘cross-border migration’ oregon usage the 1 look ‘migration’ to mean it all,” helium said.
The judge, however, said determination was a wide favoritism betwixt migration and amerciable immigration.
“Migration, erstwhile it is inter-State, is ever lawful. The connection ‘migration’ means ‘lawful migration’. When you speech of inter-country migrations, it whitethorn magnitude to amerciable immigration. In India, citizens are entitled to determination to immoderate portion of the country. It is simply a cardinal freedom. The facet of illegality comes lone successful the lawsuit of immigration. Your SIR bid does not eloquently authorities that your SIR is besides astir amerciable immigration… When it is migration simpliciter, we volition construe it arsenic inter-State migration,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The Bench asked “what was truly successful the mind” of the canvass sheet erstwhile it started the SIR exercise.
“What was successful your caput then, you accidental ‘rapid urbanisation, ‘frequent migration’ without intelligibly saying ‘illegal immigration’. Is it that present you are second-guessing the SIR,” the justice asked the canvass body.
The Bench said implicit 20 years person passed since the past SIR. There has been an tremendous question of population. Urbanisation has spread. It was admitted that wrongful entries person occurred successful the electoral roll. The tribunal asked whether the canvass sheet wanted to absorption connected these reasons and springiness itself immoderate “elbow space” oregon property connected with the ‘illegal immigration’ angle.
“Are you defending that a peculiar revision tin spell into the facet of amerciable immigration? If so, that is not clear,” Justice Bagchi asked.
Mr. Dwivedi said the different reasons fixed successful the SIR notification was much than capable to clasp an SIR. He clarified that the SIR, being legislative successful character, indispensable besides instrumentality into information the 2003 amendments made successful the citizenship law.
“This amendment came aft the erstwhile SIR. The amendment had ne'er been applied successful the intervening years, until now. Revision of electoral rolls had been done earlier connected the ground of self-declaration of citizenship. This [SIR 2025] we recovered was an opportune clip to instrumentality enactment of this statutory amendment of 2003 and analyse citizenship for the intent of preparing the electoral roll,” Mr. Dwivedi argued.
