Overview
- A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard detailed submissions from senior advocate Raju Ramachandran for the petitioners, with hearings to continue on December 16.
- At the outset, the Chief Justice directed the registry not to accept any new pleas in the matter, citing a rush of filings.
- Petitioners argued the Election Commission cannot act as a “suspicious neighbour” or “policeman,” saying inquiries triggered by booth-level officers’ doubts effectively amount to “suspending citizenship.”
- The bench noted the Special Intensive Revision is being undertaken after about 20 years and indicated limited scope for intervention on technical procedural aspects, adding it should not become an annual exercise.
- Justices highlighted socio-economic drivers of internal migration and cautioned against equating it with illegal migration, as petitioners questioned the rationale for targeting nine states and three Union Territories including Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.