Deletion from electoral roll doesn’t take away citizenship: Supreme Court

The bench said this while issuing notice on a petition seeking a mechanism to ensure early disposal of over 3 million appeals by Bengal voters facing exclusion.

Deletion of names from an electoral roll does not result in the loss of citizenship, the Supreme Court stated on Friday, reiterating that its recent judgment upholding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar casts a corresponding duty on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to refer deleted voters to the Centre to adjudicate their legal status.

The petition, filed by Prasenjit Bose of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, was argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. (Photo for representation) (HT Archive)

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said: “Our judgment (on Bihar SIR) is clear. The Election Commission of India has full control over the electoral roll. However, that does not result in loss of citizenship per se. They have a corresponding duty to refer it to the ministry of the Central government department for adjudication of the citizenship status.”

The bench made the observation while issuing notice on a petition seeking a mechanism to ensure early disposal of over three million appeals by West Bengal voters facing exclusion from subsidised ration, cash benefits, and other state welfare schemes following their removal from the electoral roll.

The petition, filed by Prasenjit Bose of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, was argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. He stated that despite the top court’s clarifying judgment, the West Bengal government has issued at least three orders removing benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Annapurna cash transfer scheme.

Sankaranarayanan, assisted by advocate Neha Rathi, pointed out that the petition seeks to expedite nearly 3.4 million appeals filed by voters excluded under the SIR exercise. He told the court that 19 tribunals were established by the Supreme Court to decide these appeals, but no official data exists regarding the number resolved so far. He urged the court to make public the standard operating procedure (SOP) for these tribunals.

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said: “The SOP was meant for internal functioning and is effectively being addressed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta high court. Your concern is on the reasonable rate of disposal of appeals.”

With local body elections in West Bengal expected to begin by December this year, the petition sought a time-bound decision on appeals filed by voters seeking inclusion in the roll after being placed on a suspect list titled ‘logical discrepancy’. The petition also requested an increase in the number of appellate tribunals from 19 to at least 42.

The court agreed to hear the matter alongside pending petitions challenging the SIR in West Bengal, slated for hearing next month. Sankaranarayanan requested an early hearing, noting that deleted voters remain deprived of welfare schemes until tribunals resolve their appeals. “Our worry is that SIR deletion is being used to deny them benefits,” he said.