The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Case: Clarity on Citizenship Verification vs. Illegal Immigration

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

Recently the Supreme Court raised critical questions about the Election Commission's (EC) justification for conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in nine States and three Union Territories. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi specifically questioned whether illegal cross-border immigration was "clearly and eloquently" cited as a reason for the SIR exercise, which involved verifying citizenship credentials of approximately 3.26 crore registered voters. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court's Questions on "Illegal Immigration": 

• The Bench questioned whether the Election Commission had actually used the term "illegal immigration" in its notification for holding the SIR. Justice Bagchi observed that the poll body had listed only "frequent migration" as one of the reasons for holding the SIR, not specifically illegal cross-border immigration. 
• Justice Bagchi asked senior advocate representing the Election Commission, whether the requirement of examining citizenship credentials was triggered by the 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act. He pointed out that if this was indeed the trigger, "that trigger does not have an eloquent expression in the SIR notification." 
• The Bench drew a clear distinction between migration and illegal immigration. Justice Bagchi emphasized that migration within the country between States is a "fundamental freedom" under the Constitution. He clarified that the word "migration" means "lawful migration," and when citizens talk of inter-country migrations, it may amount to illegal immigration in India, but citizens are entitled to move to any part of the country as a fundamental right. 
• The judge further observed that the aspect of illegality only comes into play in the case of immigration, particularly cross-border movement, but not in inter-State migration within India. 

Context of the SIR Exercise: 

• Justice Bagchi asked what was really in the mind of the poll panel when it started the SIR exercise, particularly regarding the phrase "rapid urbanisation, frequent migration" used in the notification. The Bench asked whether the poll body wanted to focus on illegal immigration specifically or was addressing broader electoral roll accuracy concerns. 
• The Court noted that over 20 years had passed since the last SIR, and there had been an enormous movement of population and urbanization, with concerns that wrongful entries may have occurred in electoral rolls. The Bench questioned whether the poll panel was defending a special revision focused on illegal immigration or simply addressing the need for electoral roll cleansing based on self-declaration of citizenship. 

What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls? 

About:  

• SIR is a comprehensive, door-to-door verification and update of electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure accurate and error-free voter lists. 

Legal Basis:  

• Conducted under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and empowered by Article 324 of the Constitution, allowing the ECI discretionary powers to revise rolls as it deems fit. 

Key Features: 

• Intensive house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). 
• Inclusion of eligible voters, deletion of duplicates, deceased, and ineligible names. 
• Submission of documents for residency and citizenship verification. 

What is the Need for Conducting a Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls? 

• Error-Free Voter List: Removes ineligible voters, adds eligible ones, corrects errors, and updates for migrations and boundary changes. 
• Safeguarding Democracy: Eliminates ghost voters and duplicates to uphold "one person, one vote" and maintain public trust. 
• Boosting Participation: Increases civic engagement through awareness drives, door-to-door surveys, and accessible registration for marginalized groups. 
• Technological Upgrades: Enables digital integration and policy reforms like remote voting to improve accessibility and efficiency.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's questioning in the SIR case underscores the critical need for constitutional precision when administrative exercises intersect with fundamental rights, particularly distinguishing between lawful inter-State migration and illegal cross-border immigration. While the Election Commission possesses legitimate authority to maintain accurate electoral rolls and verify citizenship, the ambiguity between "frequent migration" and "illegal immigration" in its justification raises concerns about whether the exercise was properly targeted or inadvertently affected citizens exercising their constitutional right to move within India. The case is expected to provide crucial judicial guidance on how constitutional authorities must balance electoral integrity with fundamental freedoms, reinforcing that administrative actions impacting constitutional rights must be clearly justified, narrowly tailored, and proportionate to uphold democratic values and public trust in the electoral system