The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has reopened concerns about how citizenship is verified in India, given that no single document conclusively proves citizenship.

ECI vs. Citizenship Status

• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Exercise: The Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting a nationwide Special Intensive Revision to update electoral rolls.
• Petitioners’ Argument: Petitioners in the Supreme Court argue that the ECI is exceeding its mandate by effectively checking citizenship, which they claim is the exclusive domain of the Central Government or Foreigners Tribunals under the Citizenship Act 1946 and the Foreigner Act 1946.
• ECI’s Defence: The ECI argues that it must verify eligibility to prevent foreigners from being added to the voter list.

Evidence Crisis- Proof of Citizenship

• No Conclusive Citizenship Document: Documents such as Passports, Voter IDs, and Aadhaar are not legally considered conclusive proof of Indian citizenship because they can be fraudulently obtained.
• Burden of Proof on the Individual: Under the Citizenship and Foreigner Acts, the burden of proving citizenship lies on the individual, reversing the criminal law principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Legal Evolution- A Shift from Soil to Blood (1955–2024)

• Generous Era (Jus Soli): From 1955 to 1987, citizenship in India was granted purely on the basis of birth in the country, irrespective of the citizenship status of one’s parents.
• Transitional Restrictions: Between 1987 and 2004, citizenship by birth required that the person be born in India and that at least one parent was an Indian citizen at the time of birth.
• Strict Era (Jus Sanguinis): After 2004, rules became far more restrictive: a person born in India would be a citizen only if both parents were Indian citizens, or one parent was a citizen and the other was not an illegal migrant.
• CAA 2019: In 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act introduced a narrow relaxation by offering a path to citizenship for certain persecuted religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists, Jains) from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Case Study of Assam

• NRC Under Supreme Court Supervision: Assam is the only state where the NRC was implemented under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
• Mass Exclusion: The exercise excluded 1.9 million people, many labelled as “D-Voters” (Doubtful Voters).
• Documentation Difficulties: Poor residents in flood-prone regions struggled to provide documents predating 1971, making the verification process extremely difficult.
• Rejection of Outcomes: The final NRC result was widely considered unsatisfactory and was even rejected by the state government overseeing it.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

The Paradox of State vs. People

• Citizenship Determined by Lower Bureaucracy: The authority to decide citizenship or label someone a “traitor” lies with the lowest rungs of bureaucracy, such as village clerks, border constables, or teachers updating voter rolls.
• Minor Errors, Lifelong Consequences: A small administrative mistake, such as a spelling error, can force an individual into prolonged litigation.

Conclusion

The situation reveals a fundamental paradox, while democracy claims that “the people create the State,” here the State determines who “the people” are.

DOWNLOAD PDF