Catalogue of Folly: On the Supreme Court, the SIR, and the Benefits

The Supreme Court has once again affirmed its stance that being removed from voter lists should not lead to consequences unrelated to the act of voting itself. This declaration came in response to directives issued by the West Bengal government in May and June. These orders connected eligibility for welfare payments and official caste certificates to the results of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. According to these directives, individuals whose names were deleted would no longer qualify for specific welfare support and certifications. A notification on May 19 specified that people removed from the voter roll should cease to be recipients of the Annapurna Yojana, a cash transfer program for women, unless they had lodged appeals with the SIR tribunal. A subsequent order on June 4 mandated the removal of beneficiaries from the Public Distribution System. Furthermore, on May 14, the government resolved to re-examine and invalidate the caste certificates of those whose names had been struck off the rolls. These decisions directly contravene the Court's explicit instructions in the Bihar SIR case, which expressly prohibited authorities from utilizing SIR outcomes for any purpose other than establishing voting rights. The Court has now dispatched notices to the Election Commission of India, the West Bengal administration, and the State’s Chief Electoral Officer. In West Bengal, approximately 3.4 million appeals have been lodged against SIR decisions, with only a minuscule portion of them having been processed, leaving millions grappling with severe uncertainty. Their exclusion from vital welfare support, including food aid, is utterly unacceptable. There exists a perplexing legal situation concerning the interplay between citizenship and the voter registration list. While the list is intended exclusively for citizens, having one's name on it does not, inherently, serve as proof of citizenship. Setting aside this paradox, it is a sensible and widely accepted notion that numerous citizens are not registered as voters. Put differently, every person listed as a voter must be a citizen, but not every citizen is necessarily recorded as a voter. Although this might seem like a straightforward concept, for the State to link a person's absence from the voter roll to other facets of civic existence—especially essential livelihood support—is both illogical and inhumane. In its Bihar SIR ruling, the Court unequivocally stated that removal from an electoral roll cannot, by itself, determine citizenship status, and that SIR results are solely connected to electoral functions. Beyond the particular facts and legal principles surrounding the SIR, broader concerns are also at stake. These encompass universal human rights that ought to apply to all individuals, whether they are citizens or not. Accurate voter lists and precise welfare delivery can contribute to improved governance. However, the state must not abandon reason and sound judgment.