New Delhi, Aug. 25 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday said its judgment on the Bihar special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls had already clarified that deletion of a person's name from the voter list does not, by itself, result in the loss of other citizenship-related or social welfare benefits.
The observation came during the hearing of petitions challenging the SIR exercise in West Bengal, where the court was told that people excluded from electoral rolls were allegedly being denied ration under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other benefits, including domicile certificates.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing for the petitioners, urged a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana to issue an order preventing such a "ripple effect" from electoral roll exclusions.
The bench, however, declined to pass a separate order on the issue. The CJI said the court was presently concerned with matters relating to pending appeals before tribunals and that other grievances could be raised before the High Court.
Rahim argued that even a word from the Supreme Court could prevent people from being deprived of essential benefits. Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that the Bihar SIR judgment had already dealt with the issue.
The court had held in the Bihar case that the Election Commission's inquiry into citizenship during SIR was limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll. It had made clear that the Commission could not conclusively decide a person's citizenship and that any finding reached during the exercise would have only electoral consequences.
The judgment said exclusion from the electoral roll does not "divest the individual of claims of citizenship" or prevent the competent authority under the Citizenship Act from deciding the issue. The bench also said anyone denied social welfare benefits following removal from the electoral roll could approach the High Court. Rahim said this was difficult for people already struggling to meet basic needs, arguing that the High Courts were overburdened.
He referred to the alleged case of a NEET rank holder who was being denied a domicile certificate following exclusion from the electoral roll. "Just imagine the plight of a person who doesn't know when his matter is being listed. He doesn't get ration. On an empty stomach, how can they go to High Court?" he said. Justice Bagchi responded, "Empty stomach - he can come to the Supreme Court but not go to the High Court?" Rahim replied that around 35 lakh people were waiting in the matter and asked why they should be left without food. He also said that while the Annapurna Yojana continued, PDS benefits had been stopped for some excluded persons.
In an earlier case concerning West Bengal, the Supreme Court had orally said that removal from the electoral roll does not automatically take away entitlement to certain benefits, including ration, while allowing the petitioner to approach the High Court. The court has also previously said that the Election Commission's role is confined to electoral rolls. Any citizenship question arising from the process must be referred to the Union government for determination under the Citizenship Act.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.