The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court of India that it has a constitutional obligation to ensure that not even a single foreigner figures on India’s electoral rolls. This assertion, made on January 6 while defending its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, comes amid reports of millions of names being struck off. The controversy is less about the goal — few dispute the need for clean rolls — and more about the process, priorities, and the constitutional spirit guiding the exercise.
What the ECI told the Supreme Court
Arguing before the Court, the ECI framed its duty primarily as exclusionary: ensuring that only citizens remain on voter lists. Even one foreigner on the rolls, it said, would violate constitutional norms. On this basis, it defended the SIR exercise, which involves large-scale verification and deletion of entries deemed doubtful.
However, this framing has raised alarms across the political spectrum. Opposition parties, legal scholars and civil society groups have not argued for retaining faulty rolls or including non-citizens. Their concern lies in the burden placed on ordinary citizens, many of whom are now required to repeatedly prove identity, residence and even existence to remain enrolled.
The deeper issue: ends versus means
At the heart of the debate is the relationship between constitutional duty and administrative process. Over decades, the ECI built its credibility by treating the right to vote not merely as a procedural formality, but as a substantive democratic entitlement. Its institutional integrity grew because it erred, where necessary, on the side of inclusion rather than suspicion.
The current approach reverses that instinct. The logic being advanced appears to be that the exclusion of every possible foreigner justifies widespread inconvenience — and even disenfranchisement — of citizens. Yet democratic systems have long recognised a countervailing principle: no number of hypothetical wrongdoers can justify the punishment of even a single innocent person.
Article 324 and the meaning of “control”
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the ECI with “control over the preparation of electoral rolls”. This power is not in dispute. What is contested is how that control is exercised. Independence under Article 324 is meant to inspire confidence across political divides. Much like a judicial process, the legitimacy of an election depends on whether those who lose still trust the system.
When mass deletions are undertaken through opaque procedures, shifting rules and uneven application, that confidence erodes. Control without transparency risks appearing arbitrary rather than constitutional.
Enrollment versus exclusion: a misplaced priority
A crucial distinction is often missed in the ECI’s defence. Several state and central authorities are tasked with identifying foreigners. Only the ECI, however, has the exclusive constitutional duty to enrol Indian citizens as voters. When the Commission frames its primary mission as removing foreigners rather than enrolling every eligible Indian, it inverts its constitutional purpose.
Critics argue that this inversion is not accidental. By foregrounding the spectre of foreigners “taking over” electoral rolls, attention is diverted from more mundane but serious challenges: outdated lists, migrant voters, urban under-enrolment, and administrative opacity.
Institutional credibility at stake
In recent years, changes in election rules and their selective application have already dented the ECI’s reputation for neutrality. The SIR exercise, conducted without adequate safeguards against exclusion errors, deepens that unease. For many citizens — particularly the poor, migrants and those with weak documentation — repeated verification is not a technical inconvenience but an existential threat to political voice.
The danger is that the Commission’s own stature suffers when it appears more committed to chasing an abstract threat than to protecting a concrete constitutional right.
What to note for Prelims?
- Article 324: Powers and role of the Election Commission of India
- Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls
- Difference between voter enrolment and citizenship determination
- Institutional independence of constitutional bodies
What to note for Mains?
- Inclusion versus exclusion in democratic processes
- Standards of fairness and transparency in electoral administration
- Impact of mass verification exercises on vulnerable citizens
- Trust as a constitutional value in elections
By prioritising the removal of the “last foreigner” over the enrolment of the “last Indian”, the ECI risks misreading both the letter and the spirit of its constitutional mandate. Electoral integrity is not secured by fear-driven exclusion, but by procedures that are fair enough to be trusted even by those who lose political power.
