New Delhi: Following the exercise in Bihar, the Election Commission is conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in several states. The objective is to remove the names of fake, duplicate, and deceased individuals from the voter list. As names are being removed during this process, it is alleged that access to benefits from government schemes is also being halted. A petition regarding one such case was filed in the Supreme Court and heard on Wednesday. During the hearing, the Court orally observed that even if a person’s name is removed from the voter list during the SIR, they remain entitled to benefits from government welfare schemes, such as rations. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the petition filed by Mohibulla Mandal from West Bengal. The petitioner had sought a stay on the cancellation or suspension of his ration card—ordered by the state’s Food and Supplies Department in June—and requested the continued provision of subsidized rations pending the outcome of his appeal. While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court stated that the Calcutta High Court was the appropriate forum to grant effective relief in this case. Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court.
What did the Supreme Court say?
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that even if one’s name is removed from the voter list, one remains entitled to certain benefits. He noted that the High Court could easily facilitate the provision of these benefits. He added that if the appeal were to be accepted, the entire dispute would automatically be resolved. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court had already clarified in the Bihar case that the removal of a name from the voter list affects only the right to vote. He urged the Court to apply this principle to the current case. In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that while the Court was prepared to reiterate this principle in even a hundred cases if necessary, it was confident that the High Court would understand the principle and grant appropriate relief. The Supreme Court also directed the appellate authority to endeavor to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal within two months. If the grievances remain unresolved even after this, the petitioner may approach the High Court.
Supreme Court has already clarified this
Earlier, in its verdict upholding the SIR process in Bihar, the Supreme Court clarified that the removal of a name from the voter list does not equate to the loss of citizenship. The Court stated that the Election Commission is not the authority to make a final determination regarding an individual’s citizenship. The only consequence of a name being removed from the voter list is that the concerned individual cannot vote; it does not automatically terminate their citizenship or other associated rights.
