Senior journalist R. Rajagopal’s brush with the SIR shows how a voter-roll deletion can ripple into other parts of a citizen’s life, even as no single document proves citizenship.

From the time the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced on June 24, 2025, that it will conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, a question that has repeatedly been asked by critics of the SIR—and which was at the heart of the petitions filed in the Supreme Court against the exercise—is about its ramifications for the issue of citizenship.

The Supreme Court’s hearings on the petitions filed against the SIR in Bihar were marked by an intense debate on whether the commission was legally empowered to conduct a large-scale verification of the citizenship credentials of voters. The SIR was described by its critics as an exercise akin to the politically contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC). Some even said the SIR was the NRC being brought in through the back door.

When the veteran journalist R. Rajagopal recently stated in a note shared on social media that his application for renewing his passport had run into trouble because his name had been struck off the voters’ list during the SIR of the electoral rolls in West Bengal, it immediately turned the focus back on the fears that have been expressed with regard to the exercise.

The Kolkata Police, Rajagopal said, had sent an adverse report to the passport authorities citing the deletion of his name from the voters’ list from the Ballygunge constituency, and this resulted in the passport office not moving forward on his application.

The passport renewal process, it is learnt, was back on track as on July 1, after the Kolkata Police, in the wake of the furore over Rajagopal’s case, sent a fresh report to the passport office giving its clearance. Rajagopal had submitted his application on February 27, and his biometric details were captured on March 19. But since then, the application was in a state of limbo.

The incident, however, has brought into focus the repercussions of the SIR beyond the exclusion of people from the voters’ list—be it getting left out of the facilities provided to every citizen or the government’s welfare schemes meant for the poor, or the much more basic question of a person’s citizenship.

“It came as quite a shock to me because the Election Commission had consistently been saying in the Supreme Court that the SIR data would be used only for the purpose of cleaning up the voters’ list. The Supreme Court also said in its judgment on the Bihar SIR that the exercise should be limited to that alone, and in case the ECI comes across citizenship issues, they must make a list of such voters and forward it to the competent authority,” Rajagopal, former editor of The Telegraph, told Frontline.

Indeed, at the heart of the challenge in the Supreme Court to the SIR conducted in Bihar was whether the exercise was in effect a large-scale verification of the citizenship of voters. The petitioners argued that it overturned the well-settled principle of presumption of the eligibility of those already on the voters’ list—that they are citizens of India, unless a specific piece of evidence was brought that gave reason to doubt it.

What the Supreme Court ruled

The Supreme Court, in its judgment pronounced on May 27 on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the SIR in Bihar, said the ECI cannot discharge its obligation to maintain a valid electoral roll without satisfying itself that the persons included in it meet the eligibility requirements, which includes being a citizen of India.

“In view of the statutory requirement under Section 16 of the RP (Representation of Peoples) Act, the Commission, in the course of preparing or revising electoral rolls, is undoubtedly empowered to examine questions bearing upon citizenship,” said a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi.

The Supreme Court, however, said, "Such an enquiry can only be made from the standpoint of determining inclusion or exclusion from the electoral roll and must be undertaken with due regard to the presumption operating in favour of the elector whose name is already borne on the roll”.

It also said that the exclusion of voters from the rolls as a result of the SIR “does not amount to a declaration that the individual is not a citizen of India; it merely reflects the Commission’s inability to be satisfied, for electoral purposes, that the statutory conditions are met”.

The Supreme Court judgment, while making it clear that the commission’s verification of a person’s citizenship credentials was only for the purpose of cleansing the electoral rolls, said any deletion on the grounds of citizenship would remain subject to a final adjudication to be undertaken by the “competent authority”.

The scale of the exclusions

Critics of the SIR argue that it has in effect cast a shadow over a vast multitude of people who have been excluded from the voters’ list following the exercise, raising the possibility that they may be required to prove their citizenship.

Former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat said the wide-ranging verification of voters’ credentials during the SIR went against the principle of presumption of a voter’s eligibility unless specific evidence was presented against the person.

“The Supreme Court had in its judgment in the Lal Babu Hussein case in 1995 stated clearly that if the inclusion of a person in the voter’s list was questioned because of doubts over the person’s citizenship, an inquiry could be carried out only in specific cases where prima facie evidence was available,” Rawat said.

The SIR has so far resulted in the deletion of six crore voters. The SIR was first carried out in Bihar, followed by phase two of the exercise, which included 12 States and UTs. Phase three of the SIR is currently underway, covering 19 States and UTs.

“A large number of people, especially those who are poor and marginalised, will be on tenterhooks. A process to verify their citizenship credentials will prove to be punishment in itself for them, especially because they are disempowered and do not have the resources,” said Maj Gen Anil Verma (Retd), head of the Association for Democratic Reforms.

Verma also emphasised that a large number of people did not have the necessary documents to prove their eligibility, as was seen during the Bihar SIR, before the Supreme Court issued directions to the ECI to include Aadhaar in the list of documents people could submit to prove their credentials.

“Many people did not have the necessary documents, because of which they were excluded from the voters’ list in the first place. They will have to go through the same rigmarole if they are called upon to produce documents before the competent authority,” Verma said.

Experts point out that the same set of officials who were part of the verification process under the SIR would again be part of an inquiry into the citizenship credentials of the excluded voters whose names are forwarded by the ECI to the competent authority.

“Legally, it is only the Ministry of Home Affairs which can decide on the citizenship of a person. And the MHA’s inquiry into the citizenship of a person would involve the same machinery as the SIR, including officials such as the Sub-Divisional Magistrates and District Magistrates, who were part of the SIR as Electoral Registration Officers or joint chief electoral officers,” said Rawat.

No single proof of citizenship

Another aspect of the citizenship issue being discussed in the backdrop of the SIR is the question of which document a person must produce to prove he or she is a citizen—because, as it turns out, no single document is proof of Indian citizenship.

While Rajagopal’s passport renewal application was put on hold because his name was taken off the voters’ list, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated on June 24 that the Indian passport is a “travel document” and not a “citizenship document”.

“Passport is a travel document, not a document of citizenship, and theoretically speaking, that distinguishes passport from other documents. Even though while travelling abroad, passport attests to your nationality, yet it is not a document of your citizenship,” a senior MEA official said in response to a question from The Hindu on whether the passport could be used to challenge an exclusion from the voters’ list as a result of the SIR.

In the backdrop of the Bihar SIR, on August 12, 2025, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, in response to a question in the Lok Sabha about the categories of valid documents required to prove one’s citizenship, did not specify what these documents are. It referred to the Citizenship Act, which does not specify any document as proof of citizenship.

“The citizenship of India is governed under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and rules made thereunder,” Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai said in a written reply. He further said citizenship can be acquired by birth (Section 3), by descent (Section 4), by registration (Section 5), by naturalisation (Section 6), or by incorporation of territory (Section 7) of the Act.

The ECI had for purposes of the SIR originally prescribed a list of 11 documents for verification of voters: identity card issued to a regular employee or pension payment order issued by government or a public sector undertaking; identity card/certificate/document issued by the Government of India/local authorities/banks/post office/Life Insurance Corporation of India/PSUs before July 1, 1987; birth certificate; passport; matriculation/educational certificate from recognised boards/universities; permanent residence certificate issued by competent State authority; forest rights certificate; OBC/SC/ST or any caste certificate issued by competent authority; NRC (wherever it exists); family register prepared by State/local authorities; and land/house allotment certificate issued by government. Aadhaar was added later to the list, acting upon the directions of the Supreme Court. But none of these documents is conclusive proof of one’s citizenship.

In 2003, the Citizenship Act was amended to include provisions for the establishment of an NRC. The amendment empowered the Central government to compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue a national identity card to them. The NRC exercise has been undertaken in Assam, mandated by the Supreme Court. However, a national NRC has not taken off in the face of strong opposition from various quarters and fears that it could result in the targeting of minority communities and could exclude the poor and marginalised sections who do not have adequate documents.

“In the discussions in the Supreme Court too, the fact that none of these 12 documents is proof of citizenship came up for discussion. So what is a conclusive proof of citizenship in our country? That is not clear. So the passport, which is supposed to be proof of citizenship when one goes abroad, is also not proof of citizenship. We need to sort this out,” Verma said.

The stated purpose of the SIR is to cleanse the electoral rolls. But it may result in a large number of people, the majority of them poor and marginalised, forced to prove that they belong.