Examine the limits of the Election Commission's powers in determining citizenship while revising electoral rolls, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Citizenship is the first of four conditions for enrolment under Article 326 and Section 16 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950. The Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) raised a sharper question: may the Election Commission of India (ECI) only verify citizenship, or also decide it? The Supreme Court's answer is that it may verify but not adjudicate.

Source of the ECI's power

• Article 324 (superintendence of rolls) and Section 21(3), RP Act (special revision at any time) were upheld as the basis for the SIR in ADR v Union of India (27 May 2026) [2].
• Citizenship is a "condition precedent" for enrolment, so the ECI may hold a limited inquiry for electoral purposes [3].

Limits drawn by the Court

• No final adjudication: only the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 can formally decide citizenship. Doubtful cases must be referred to it, and Bihar deletions on citizenship grounds had to be referred within four weeks [3].
• Deletion is not a declaration: refusing enrolment "would not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen" [3].
• Due process: Lal Babu Hussein (1995) requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a name is deleted [1]. The 2026 ruling keeps the Rule 21A notice, hearing and reasoned order, and the Section 24 appeals [3].
• Presumption: an existing entry raises a rebuttable presumption in the elector's favour [3].
• Documents: Aadhaar must be accepted to prove identity, not citizenship [3].

Grey areas that remain

• Power upheld, method open: the Court said the revised Form 6 was "neither approved nor disapproved" [4].
• Burden on electors: the Court tied the SIR's validity to how it is implemented [3]. Demands for documents weigh most heavily on migrants and the poor.
• Indirect discrimination: screening flags unrelated to the statutory conditions, reported in later phases, risk violating Articles 14 and 15.

Way forward

• Use only checks linked to the four legal conditions, and publish the criteria and flag rates.
• Set time-bound referrals, allow online claims and avoid revisions close to polls.

Taken together, these rulings make the ECI the gatekeeper of an accurate roll, not the judge of nationality. Checks that are transparent, grounded in law and open to appeal would protect both the purity of the roll and universal adult franchise under Article 326. They would also serve SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive decision-making.