Many politicians and non-governmental organizations, including attorneys Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan, Shadan Farasat, and Md Nizamuddin Pasha, have argued in favor of the opposition's claim that the EC cannot decide citizenship.
The government or Foreigners Tribunal is in charge of determining a voter's citizenship, hence the EC has no authority to do so.
They all said that, in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, the EC has no authority to check a person's citizenship and remove them from the voter list if they have proof of residency, are above 18, and self-declare to be an Indian citizen.
In response, a bench consisting of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated on Tuesday, "EC does not claim that it has the power to determine citizenship of a person or declare him as a foreigner."
However, it can definitely look into it if it has questions about the citizenship of someone who is registered to vote or wants their name added to the list.
"First and foremost, a person must be an Indian citizen in order to be eligible to vote. Can't the EC conduct an inquisitorial investigation to identify suspicious citizens given the constitutional and statutory authorities granted to it? The bench endorsed the EC's position on the matter by saying, "That is included in the constitutional task of superintendence of elections."
Farasat contended that the EC lacked the authority to hijack a statutory system for determining citizenship. The Supreme Court stated, "It would be misleading to claim that a person needed simply proof of age and place of residence to be added to a voter list without proof of citizenship. Statutory criteria include proof of age and place of residence. However, citizenship is mandated under the constitution.
Consider the hypothetical case of an undocumented immigrant who has lived in India for more than ten years and is older than eighteen.
Will he be added to the voter list as a citizen? It would be incorrect to claim that citizenship should be assumed when residency and age requirements are satisfied, it stated.
stated that "The danger of illegal migrants getting into voters' lists is far less compared to mass exclusion of voters in the name of identifying non-citizens."
The Supreme Court responded, "Can it be said that by asking for documentary proof, it is attempting to determine citizenship of a person?"
