New Delhi: The Supreme Court has questioned whether foreigners who have managed to access welfare schemes via Aadhaar should automatically be granted entry to the electoral roll, as it scrutinises the Election Commission’s controversial voter verification drive.

In a hearing on Wednesday (November 26) regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant drew a sharp distinction between social security and citizenship.

“Aadhaar is the creation of a statute… But suppose a person comes from a neighbouring country to India, works as a labourer or a rickshaw puller, he accesses Aadhaar to provide subsidised ration for his children — that is our constitutional ethos.

“But does it mean that since he has got Aadhaar, he should be made a voter also?” the chief justice asked.

The query was directed at senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is challenging the constitutionality of the SIR exercise – now announced across 12 states and union territories.

The petitioners argue that the drive, which covers 51 crore people across the states, crucially including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, acts as a "thinly veiled citizenship screening" that shifts the burden of proof onto voters.

ECI cannot be an ‘inert post office’

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, pushed back against the suggestion that the election commission lacks the power to verify "doubtful" entries.

Justice Bagchi observed that the ECI has inherent jurisdiction to vet the rolls and cannot be expected to operate like an “inert post office”.

However, Sibal argued that “any exclusionary step or attempt taken by the EC is against the constitutional scheme,” warning that millions of illiterate citizens – particularly women – could be disenfranchised if forced to fill out complex enumeration forms.

“We celebrated Poorna Swaraj for inclusion, equality and universal suffrage,” Sibal added. “Don’t you think there are millions of illiterate women in this country? Will they not be excluded?”

The rural voter debate

A heated exchange followed regarding the awareness of rural voters. Sibal contended that labourers and field workers would be unable to navigate the bureaucratic demands of the SIR.

The chief justice disagreed, observing that the court cannot assume marginalised sections are "clueless" about their rights.

“They are more vigilant than the urban voters,” Chief Justice Kant said. “The day of voting is a cause for celebration in rural areas.”

To this, Sibal retorted, “My point is if you want to take away my rights, you take it away by means of a process... We had brought here electors who were declared dead by the [booth level officers].”

Timeline and jurisdiction

The petitioners also challenged the "hasty" two-month deadline for the exercise, arguing it is humanly impossible to verify such vast numbers accurately.

The top court, however, referenced the previous Bihar SIR hearings, noting that while petitioners had feared crores of deletions, the final figure was just over three lakh. The bench indicated that if the ECI needs more time, extensions could be granted, but the process itself should not be annulled based on a fear of delay.

The hearing also touched upon the unique status of Assam, with advocates noting that "doubtful voters" there are handled by Foreigners' Tribunals, a mechanism distinct from the ECI’s booth-level officers.

The hearing in the case is ongoing.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.