The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern over allegations that deletion of names from electoral rolls is being used to deny citizens access to welfare schemes, while reiterating that exclusion from the voters’ list does not amount to loss of citizenship.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that individuals whose names had been deleted from electoral rolls were being deprived of essential public benefits even while their appeals against such deletion remained pending.
Counsel argued that deletion from the electoral roll was having consequences far beyond voting rights. According to the submissions, people were allegedly being excluded from the public distribution system, women’s cash transfer schemes such as the Annapurna Yojana, and even faced verification of caste certificates solely because their names had been removed from the electoral rolls.
Responding to the submissions, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana recalled its earlier judgment concerning the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, emphasizing that the Election Commission’s authority is confined to preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls and does not extend to deciding questions of citizenship.
“
“We are conscious of this and we indicated that in our judgment in Bihar SIR. We made it very clear that there is a corresponding duty of the ECI. As soon as he takes a decision that the citizenship is not, in their estimation, correctly assessed and he can delete from the voters’ list… the ECI has a corresponding duty to refer it to the Ministry or the concerned Central Government department for an adjudication under the Citizenship Act. “Until and unless that is done, for other purposes the status continues.”
When counsel submitted that various welfare entitlements were being withdrawn merely because names had been deleted from electoral rolls, the Bench observed that such consequences had neither been contemplated nor endorsed in its earlier judgment.
The Court reiterated that the Election Commission cannot be treated as the authority determining citizenship under the Constitution.
“
“Our judgment is very clear. ECI is not a constitutional authority with regard to status under Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12.”
Counsel informed the Court that while nearly 34 lakh appeals against deletion of names were pending, only about 38,000 appeals had been decided, leaving around 33.5 lakh appeals awaiting adjudication. During this period, he argued, affected individuals were allegedly losing access to welfare schemes despite the fact that a substantial number of appeals had eventually succeeded.
Highlighting the practical hardships, counsel submitted that the Court’s earlier judgment was never intended to permit deprivation of civil benefits pending adjudication of appeals. He suggested that the Court issue additional directions requiring greater transparency, including publication of standard operating procedures, tribunal orders and websites, besides recognizing certain documents such as passports as sufficient proof of citizenship for electoral purposes.
A Limited directions was sought to “iron out the creases” in implementation and prevent hardship to citizens during the pendency of appeals. The matter was directed to be listed on August 25, 2026.