Why the Election Commission’s ‘foreigner-first’ argument on voter rolls is raising constitutional concerns

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) defence of its ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls before the Supreme Court has triggered a deeper constitutional debate — not about whether foreigners should vote (a question on which there is unanimity), but about how the Republic balances electoral integrity with the rights and dignity of its own citizens. By framing its constitutional duty primarily as the exclusion of foreigners, critics argue, the ECI risks inverting both its historical role and the spirit of India’s electoral democracy.

What the ECI told the Supreme Court

On January 6, the “Election Commission of India” told the “Supreme Court of India” that it has a constitutional obligation to ensure that only citizens are enrolled as voters. Even a single foreigner, the Commission argued, cannot be allowed to remain on the electoral rolls.

This submission came in defence of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise currently underway, under which millions of names have reportedly been deleted from voter lists across states. The ECI has justified the exercise as essential to the “purity” of elections and to preventing illegal voting by non-citizens.

What the critics are actually saying

Opposition parties, legal scholars and civil society groups have been careful to stress what they are not arguing. No one has made a case for the inclusion of foreigners on electoral rolls. Nor has anyone defended the status quo of voter lists that are often outdated, error-ridden and difficult for citizens to navigate.

The concern lies elsewhere: in the process adopted and the burden it places on ordinary citizens. Under the SIR, large numbers of voters have been asked to prove their identity and citizenship afresh, often through documentation that many Indians — particularly migrants, the poor, the elderly and women — struggle to produce. What is being questioned is whether a constitutionally mandated body should subject citizens to widespread inconvenience and anxiety in pursuit of what critics describe as a largely hypothetical threat.

The ECI’s constitutional role — historically understood

Article 324 of the Constitution grants the ECI independent control over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections. Over decades, the Commission has built its formidable institutional credibility by interpreting this power expansively — not merely as a policing function, but as a democratic one.

In practice, this meant prioritising enrolment over exclusion. From lowering barriers to registration, to conducting outreach among marginalised communities, the ECI came to be seen as the custodian of the world’s largest franchise. Occasional slippages notwithstanding, its legitimacy flowed from a simple premise: that the right to vote is not just procedural, but substantive.

The moral intuition behind this approach is familiar — that no number of escaped wrongdoers can justify the punishment of even one innocent person. Applied to elections, it means that the exclusion of a genuine voter is a far graver democratic injury than the hypothetical inclusion of a fraudulent one.

How the current framing flips that logic

By presenting its primary constitutional duty as the elimination of foreigners, critics argue, the ECI has turned its priorities upside down. Several state and central authorities have a mandate to identify and act against illegal immigrants. Only the ECI, however, has the singular responsibility to enrol every eligible Indian citizen as a voter.

The current approach risks treating enrolment as a privilege to be re-earned, rather than a right to be facilitated. When large numbers of citizens are compelled to repeatedly “prove” themselves to the state, the electoral process begins to resemble a filter rather than a gateway.

The deeper issue of trust in the electoral process

The ultimate test of any electoral system — much like a judicial one — is whether those who lose still trust the process. That trust does not arise from legal authority alone, but from perceived fairness, neutrality and proportionality.

Here, critics argue, the ECI is faltering. Changes in electoral rules, combined with their selective or partisan application, have already dented the Commission’s stature in recent years. The SIR exercise, conducted at scale and with limited transparency, has amplified suspicions that the institution is no longer acting with the independence and restraint expected of it.

Foreigner anxiety and the risk of political polarisation

The spectre of foreigners “taking over” electoral rolls has a powerful emotional charge, even when empirical evidence is thin. Critics warn that such narratives can serve as a convenient facade — shifting public attention away from more pressing threats to electoral integrity, such as opaque political funding, misuse of state machinery, and unequal media access.

There is also unease that this anxiety dovetails neatly with broader political polarisation, where citizenship itself becomes a site of contestation rather than a settled constitutional fact.

What the constitutional duty actually demands

At its core, the Constitution envisions the ECI not as a gatekeeper obsessed with exclusion, but as a guarantor of universal adult suffrage. Its duty is first to find, include and empower Indian citizens — and only then to correct errors with restraint and due process.

By unleashing avoidable suffering and inconvenience on citizens in the name of chasing the “last foreigner”, critics argue, the ECI risks misreading the letter of its powers while ignoring their spirit. In doing so, it undermines not only individual voters, but the very confidence that sustains India’s electoral democracy.