Calcutta High Court: A PIL was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India, urging it to take full responsibility for conducting complete citizenship verification of candidates and raising concerns about foreign nationals illegally obtaining Indian citizenship and participating in the electoral process. A Division Bench of T S Sivagnanam, CJ., and Chaitali Chatterjee, JJ., disposed of the petition and held that the existing procedures followed by the Election Commission of India were adequate and that the introduction of a new process, as sought by the petitioner, was not within the scope of judicial intervention.
The petitioner argued that proof of citizenship and a thorough verification process were mandatory for all candidates seeking election, particularly in the context of the upcoming West Bengal Legislative Assembly Elections, expected to be held between March and April 2026 for all 294 seats in the state. The petitioner highlighted concerns about foreign nationals obtaining Indian citizenship illegally and participating in the electoral process, which, according to the petitioner, could have significant implications for the integrity of the electoral system.
The petitioner’s primary contention was that the Election Commission of India was not fulfilling its constitutional and statutory duties with respect to the verification of citizenship before allowing individuals to contest in elections. The petitioner sought the implementation of a new process to ensure more stringent checks on the citizenship status of candidates, asserting that this would be essential in maintaining the purity of the electoral process and safeguarding the democratic system.
Counsel for the Election Commission of India maintained that its existing processes already had adequate checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the nominations.
The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, noted that the petitioner’s request to introduce a new process for the verification of citizenship of candidates essentially amounted to seeking a legislative exercise. Thus, considering the role of the Election Commission of India and the prayer sought for, new procedure cannot be directed to be put in place by a writ court by directing authorities to frame regulation.
However, the Court clarified that while it could not direct the implementation of a new procedure, citizens still retained the right to raise objections regarding the validity of a candidate’s nomination.
[Manik Fakir v UOI, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3166, decided on 10-04-2025]
Judgment by: Justice T S Sivagnanan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi, Ms. Susmita Das, Ms. Ayasha Najrin ..for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee for the State.
Mr. Ashok Chakraborti, ASGI, Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Ms. Rini Bhattacharyya, Advocates for the Respondent 1, 7 and 8.
Ms. Sonal Sinha, Ms. Shabnam Farooqi Advocates for Respondent 3.
Mr. Anuran Samanta, Advocates for the Respondent 2 and 4.