The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard that a Booth Level Officer (BLO), the first point of contact between the Election Commission and a voter, has no authority to determine a person’s citizenship while verifying voter details during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 12 States and Union Territories.
Appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the SIR exercise, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the revision process, which began in Bihar and was later extended nationwide, has effectively become “an exclusionary exercise,” contrary to the inclusive electoral framework adopted after Independence, based on universal adult franchise.
Sibal referred to the Government of India Act, 1919, under which voter eligibility depended on property ownership, tax payment, and educational qualifications — criteria that, he pointed out, are echoed in the types of documents currently being relied upon as proof of identity during the SIR. This, he said, risks reintroducing restrictive filters into the electoral process.
He added that millions of people from marginalized sections are unaware of the exercise and the documents required, highlighting that the Election Commission’s claims do not align with ground realities.
When the Bench asked whether a BLO could conduct checks if they suspected a person’s citizenship, Sibal responded that while a BLO may flag such doubts, “he can only refer the matter to the Central government to take a decision” and cannot undertake adjudication himself.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked, “In exercise of its inherent or complementary powers, cannot the Election Commission verify and check the declaration made by a person in Form 6?”
Sibal pointed to Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which disqualifies a voter only under three circumstances: non-citizenship, being of unsound mind as declared by a competent court, or disqualification under laws relating to electoral offences.
“In none of these three cases,” Sibal emphasised, “does the BLO have jurisdiction or competence to decide.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), supported the argument and noted that the point was acknowledged by the Election Commission itself in its SIR notification for Assam. There, the ECI clarified that in cases involving “doubtful voters,” BLOs cannot delete names but must refer the matter to Foreigners Tribunals for adjudication.
Following the Election Commission’s June 24 notification directing the SIR in Bihar, several petitions were filed challenging both the constitutionality of the exercise and the procedure adopted.
Petitioners including ADR, PUCL, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, and activist Yogendra Yadav have argued that the SIR violates Articles 14, 19, 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution, as well as provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
They contend that the exercise risks large-scale disenfranchisement of rural, marginalized, and under-documented voters. Sibal will continue his arguments tomorrow, November 27.