The recent notice issued to Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami to appear for a Special Intensive Review (SIR) hearing in Kolkata has predictably triggered a political and emotional storm. Predictable, because in West Bengal today, even routine constitutional processes are immediately framed as persecution—or worse, communal targeting. Yet stripped of noise and motivated outrage, the episode raises a larger and unavoidable question: can India’s constitutional institutions still verify citizenship without fear or favour? According to reports, Shami—currently representing Bengal in the Vijay Hazare Trophy in Rajkot—was summoned along with his brother Mohammed Kaif for an SIR hearing by the Election Commission (EC). Unable to attend due to professional commitments, Shami sought fresh dates, which were duly rescheduled between January 9 and 11. That, in itself, reflects procedural accommodation rather than harassment. It is important to underline a basic but often ignored fact: the Election Commission of India is a constitutional authority with an unmatched track record of conducting free and fair elections in one of the world’s most populous democracies. Its mandate includes periodic verification of electoral rolls, especially when discrepancies or incomplete documentation arise. To read mala fide intent into every such action is to deliberately weaken an institution essential to democratic integrity. Shami is enrolled as a voter in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Ward 93, under the Rashbehari constituency. His personal history is well-documented—originally from Uttar Pradesh, he moved to Kolkata at a young age to pursue professional cricket and came under the mentorship of former Bengal Ranji captain Sambaran Bandyopadhyay before breaking into state and national teams. None of this is in dispute, and none of it automatically exempts him from routine verification applicable to every voter. The SIR exercise must also be viewed in a broader historical and demographic context. Large-scale migration from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) into Assam and West Bengal followed the 1971 war. While India’s role in the creation of Bangladesh remains a defining moment of regional history, successive governments—particularly under Congress rule—failed to institute robust mechanisms to document and regulate post-war migration. The demographic consequences of that inaction are visible even today. In recent years, intelligence agencies have repeatedly flagged concerns about illegal migration altering electoral rolls in border states.
The Supreme Court itself has upheld the legality of voter verification drives, recognising the state’s obligation to protect electoral integrity. Against this backdrop, the EC’s SIR exercise is not extraordinary—it is overdue. That the review has extended to public figures further reinforces the point that visibility does not confer immunity. Trinamool Congress MP and actor Deepak Adhikari (Dev) has also reportedly received an SIR notice seeking proof of citizenship for himself and family members. Actor Anirban Bhattacharya and actor couple Kaushik Banerjee and Laboni Sarkar have similarly been asked to appear or submit legacy documents. In Bhattacharya’s case, officials cited failure to submit records dating back to 2002 while filling the enumeration form. The Trinamool Congress predictably cries foul, portraying the process as harassment of “busy” public figures. But constitutional scrutiny is not scheduled around celebrity calendars. Citizenship verification is neither selective nor punitive—it is foundational. Critics allege that illegal migrants over the decades have managed to acquire Aadhaar cards and voter IDs, some even rising to political office. These remain allegations, not judicial findings, but they underscore why transparent verification is necessary. Democracies collapse not when institutions act, but when they are prevented from acting. The Election Commission’s current exercise appears aimed at exactly that—establishing documentary clarity, irrespective of stature or influence. If individuals can establish their roots and eligibility, the process ends there. If they cannot, the law must take its course. In a climate where illegal migration, electoral manipulation, and demographic anxieties are routinely politicised, the EC’s insistence on verification should be seen not as overreach, but as constitutional responsibility. India cannot afford a democracy where scrutiny stops at fame, faith, or political convenience. Verification is not vendetta. Due process is not discrimination. And the rule of law must apply—uniformly, calmly, and without apology.
