01 Read
What happened
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, conducted under the Representation of the People Act, has raised constitutional questions about citizenship verification and the burden of proof. The Supreme Court has held that any State action affecting life or personal liberty under Article 21 must satisfy procedural fairness. When the State labels someone a suspected foreigner during SIR, the question is whether the burden of proof shifts to the individual or stays with the State.
02 Understand
Why it matters
The SIR process involves electoral roll revision where officials can flag individuals as 'doubtful citizens.' This intersects with the Foreigners Act, 1946, which under Section 9 places the burden of proof on the accused person to prove they are not a foreigner — an inversion of the ordinary criminal law presumption of innocence.
The constitutional tension is threefold. First, Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) extended this to require that any deprivation must be through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure — not merely any procedure established by law. Second, Article 14 demands non-arbitrariness in State action. Third, Article 19(1)(d) protects the right to move freely, which citizenship determines.
The court's position, built across cases including Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) and subsequent Foreigners Tribunal jurisprudence, is that while Section 9 of the Foreigners Act is constitutionally valid and the burden does lie on the alleged foreigner, the initial triggering of proceedings must be based on credible material — the State cannot arbitrarily invoke the machinery. During SIR, if someone is marked 'D-voter' (doubtful voter) without basis, it amounts to arbitrary State action violating Article 21 read with Article 14.
The procedural safeguard the court insists upon is that the individual must be given an opportunity to be heard before being disenfranchised or detained — natural justice as a constitutional imperative under Article 21.
The constitutional tension is threefold. First, Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) extended this to require that any deprivation must be through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure — not merely any procedure established by law. Second, Article 14 demands non-arbitrariness in State action. Third, Article 19(1)(d) protects the right to move freely, which citizenship determines.
The court's position, built across cases including Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) and subsequent Foreigners Tribunal jurisprudence, is that while Section 9 of the Foreigners Act is constitutionally valid and the burden does lie on the alleged foreigner, the initial triggering of proceedings must be based on credible material — the State cannot arbitrarily invoke the machinery. During SIR, if someone is marked 'D-voter' (doubtful voter) without basis, it amounts to arbitrary State action violating Article 21 read with Article 14.
The procedural safeguard the court insists upon is that the individual must be given an opportunity to be heard before being disenfranchised or detained — natural justice as a constitutional imperative under Article 21.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial