Lists of folly: On the Supreme Court, the SIR and benefits
The Supreme Court has reiterated its position that exclusion from the electoral rolls cannot have consequences unrelated to voting . The Court was responding to West Bengal government orders, issued in May-June, that linked welfare benefits and official caste certifications to the outcomes of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls . Those removed would become ineligible for certain welfare benefits and certifications under these orders. A May 19 notification directed that persons removed from the electoral roll should not continue as beneficiaries of the Annapurna Yojana, a cash transfer scheme for women, unless they had filed appeals before the SIR tribunal. A June 4 order directed the deletion of beneficiaries from the Public Distribution System. On May 14, the government decided to re-verify and cancel caste certificates of those persons whose names had been deleted from the rolls. These decisions run contrary to the clear instructions of the Court in the Bihar SIR case, which specifically barred authorities from using SIR outcomes for any purpose other than determining voting rights. The Court has now issued notices to the Election Commission of India, the West Bengal government and the State’s Chief Electoral Officer. Approximately 34 lakh appeals have been filed against SIR outcomes in West Bengal, and only a tiny fraction of them has been disposed of, leaving millions in a precarious state of uncertainty. Their exclusion from welfare benefits, including food support, is unconscionable. There is a legal paradox in the relationship between citizenship and the electoral roll. The roll is meant to include only citizens, but enrolment on the roll is not, by itself, proof of citizenship. This paradox apart, it is a sound and commonsensical assumption that many citizens are not enrolled as voters. In other words, all those enlisted as voters must be citizens, but not all citizens are necessarily enrolled as voters. While this may be a simple and straightforward proposition, for the State to link the absence of a person’s name from the electoral roll to other aspects of civic life — especially subsistence benefits — is both illogical and cruel. In its Bihar SIR judgment, the Court clearly stated that exclusion from an electoral roll cannot by itself determine citizenship status and that SIR outcomes are linked only to electoral purposes. The specific facts and legal principles relating to the SIR notwithstanding, larger issues are also at stake. These include universal human rights that must apply to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike. Clean electoral rolls and targeted welfare delivery can contribute to better governance. But the state must not take leave of logic and common sense. Published - July 22, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics court / election / voting / Bengal / government / welfare / Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls / Caste / Election Commission of India / Citizenship
- 1Article 326 of the Constitution establishes universal adult suffrage as the basis of the electoral roll, but enrolment as a voter has never been treated as conclusive proof of citizenship under Indian law. This distinction matters because the Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs roll preparation strictly for electoral purposes, not for determining civic status more broadly. When a state government stretches a voter list into a citizenship or welfare filter, it collapses a settled constitutional distinction that the SIR process was never designed to erase.
- 2Special Intensive Revision exercises are conducted by the Election Commission under its Article 324 superintendence powers over elections, and the Bihar SIR round in 2025 had already triggered litigation before the Supreme Court over documentation demands and exclusion risks for genuine voters. That earlier controversy established the precedent the West Bengal orders now appear to violate, since the Court had confined SIR consequences strictly to electoral rolls rather than allowing them to spill into unrelated domains of governance.
- 3The Bihar SIR litigation, brought by petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms alongside opposition parties, produced Supreme Court directions restricting how exclusion from rolls could be used by authorities, a principle now directly invoked against West Bengal's welfare-linked notifications. Any state order that conditions ration entitlements or caste certification on SIR appeal outcomes runs against this settled position, exposing such orders to being struck down as ultra vires and inconsistent with binding precedent.
- 4West Bengal's orders affected access to the Public Distribution System, which under the National Food Security Act, 2013 guarantees subsidised foodgrain to roughly two-thirds of the country's population, alongside the Annapurna Yojana cash transfer scheme for women beneficiaries. With about 34 lakh appeals pending and only a small fraction resolved, a large population faced possible loss of food security and cash support based on an unresolved electoral technicality rather than any adjudicated change in their citizenship or eligibility.