The Supreme Court of India has sought a detailed response from the Election Commission of India (EC) regarding the number of voters whose names have been removed from electoral rolls on the grounds of not being Indian citizens. The directive came during a hearing on October 19, 2022, for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which seeks to establish a robust mechanism for identifying and deleting names of "illegal immigrants and foreign nationals" from voter lists.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, specifically asked the Election Commission counsel to ascertain and report "how many names of people have been deleted from the electoral rolls on the ground that they are not citizens of India." This inquiry underscores the judiciary's intent to understand the existing processes and the scale of such deletions.

The PIL filed by Upadhyay highlights concerns over the integrity of the electoral process, alleging that the presence of non-citizens on voter rolls poses a significant threat to national security and the democratic framework. The petition advocates for a comprehensive, time-bound system to identify such individuals, citing the potential for electoral manipulation and the dilution of legitimate citizen votes.

Key aspects of the ongoing legal proceedings and the petitioner's arguments include:

  • Petitioner's Objective: The plea aims for a directive to the Election Commission to implement a stringent system for identifying and subsequently deleting the names of "illegal immigrants" and "foreign nationals" from the electoral rolls across the country.
  • Alleged Irregularities: The petition claims instances of "duplication" of names and "vulnerability" to manipulation within the existing voter registration framework, necessitating immediate intervention.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Upadhyay's plea references previous landmark judgments by the apex court, including the Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India case (2005), which had struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, emphasizing the threat posed by illegal immigration.
  • Central Government's Stance: The Union Government has reportedly filed an affidavit in support of the plea's core objective, signaling a consensus on the need to address the issue of non-citizens on voter lists.
  • Election Commission's Challenges: Historically, the Election Commission has stated the difficulty in independently identifying illegal migrants without active assistance from state governments, as the identification of non-citizens typically falls under the purview of law enforcement and state authorities. The EC has previously maintained that states are responsible for identifying non-citizens, and subsequently, their names are removed from the electoral rolls upon notification.
  • Electoral Offences: The plea also touches upon potential "electoral offences" under various statutes, including the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Indian Penal Code, further emphasizing the legal ramifications of non-citizens participating in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings for this matter. Both the Election Commission and the Central Government are expected to file their detailed affidavits, outlining their positions, current mechanisms, and proposed solutions to address the concerns raised in the PIL. The outcome of these proceedings could potentially lead to significant reforms in voter registration and verification processes across India.