Dhulia, speaking at an Idea Exchange event, said citizenship remained a prerequisite for registration as a voter but the poll body was not the authority empowered to decide a person’s citizenship. He said that responsibility lay with the Union Home Ministry, reiterating a position he had voiced while sitting on a Supreme Court bench hearing challenges to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar in July 2025.
“This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several earlier judgments: this is not the Election Commission of India’s job,” Dhulia said. “But a voter has to be a citizen of this country. The problem is the enormous conditions that have been imposed.”
His remarks have renewed attention on the legal boundaries of the ECI’s powers as the commission carries out a large-scale revision of electoral rolls. The exercise has generated disputes over documentation, inclusion and deletion of names, and the procedures used to establish whether applicants satisfy statutory eligibility requirements.
The Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes citizenship a condition for electoral registration. Section 16 disqualifies a person from registration if that person is not a citizen of India, while electoral registration authorities have powers to maintain and revise the rolls. The legal dispute centres on how far those powers extend when doubts about citizenship arise and which authority can conclusively determine citizenship status.
Dhulia’s comments echoed the distinction he drew from the bench in July 2025. Sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi on a vacation bench, he declined to halt the Bihar revision at that stage but questioned the documentation requirements and suggested that the commission consider Aadhaar, voter identity cards and ration cards while updating the rolls.
At the event, Dhulia emphasised that his role in those proceedings was limited. He said he had sat as a vacation judge for only a day or two and that the substantive arguments on the validity of the revision were heard later by another bench. His bench had dealt principally with interim issues concerning documents.
The Supreme Court subsequently ruled in May 2026 on challenges arising from the Bihar exercise. The court noted that Aadhaar does not constitute proof of citizenship or domicile, while recognising its statutory use for establishing identity. It also recorded that an earlier interim order had directed the commission to treat Aadhaar as an additional document of identity for considering inclusion or exclusion from Bihar’s revised electoral roll.
Questions over citizenship and electoral registration have reached the Supreme Court before. In the 1995 Lal Babu Hussein case, the court examined Election Commission directions concerning people suspected of being non-citizens and stressed procedural safeguards. It held that electoral authorities dealing with citizenship questions for the limited purpose of the electoral law had to examine them carefully under the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, while ensuring affected people received a proper opportunity to respond.
Dhulia also addressed concerns over the functioning of the three-member Election Commission. Asked about objections reportedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to steps taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, he said it would be serious if decisions had been taken only by the CEC. He cautioned, however, that the other side had not been heard and that it was too early to reach a conclusion.
The Election Commission has maintained that final decisions relating to the electoral-roll revision were unanimous and has announced procedural changes intended to ease difficulties faced by voters during verification. These include steps concerning document collection and the handling of voters whose records require further scrutiny.
