The knock on the Supreme Court’s door

Why in the News

The Election Commission of India (ECI) was designed as a multi-member body whose members check one another, but during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls it often became a one-man show. An Indian Express investigation documented this shift. Two Supreme Court judges, one sitting and one retired, have now called the SIR a threat to the right to vote, putting the Court’s own silence on test.

What is the SIR, and what went wrong in how the ECI ran it?

1. What the SIR is: An intensive revision prepares the voter roll afresh through house-to-house checks, rather than updating the existing list.
2. Multi-member design: The ECI has more than one member so that no single officer decides alone, like a bench rather than a single judge.
3. Internal checks weakened: The investigation found decisions taken by one person, which undermines the checks and balances inside the Commission.
4. Burden on the voter: The ECI abandoned its record of inclusiveness. Vulnerable voters had to prove eligibility, facing a “hurdle race” at every SIR stage.
5. The takeaway: When the body that guards the voter list excludes voters, the right to vote itself is at stake.

Why do two judges call the SIR a threat to the right to vote?

1. Sitting judge’s view: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the SIR’s mass disenfranchisement, or stripping citizens of the vote, violates the Constitution.
2. Vote as the soul: He said cutting a citizen off from the vote is like “taking out the soul from the body”.
3. Constituent Assembly’s choice: He recalled that the freedom struggle made universal adult franchise a natural choice and an essential part of democracy.
4. Equal vote, equal value: Giving every citizen an equal vote, whatever their identity or social position, was the new nation’s first step towards equality.
5. Retired judge’s view: Former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Fali Nariman said the SIR’s removal of voters puts the right to vote, the “heart of our democracy”, in “great peril”.

Is the Supreme Court itself now on test?

1. Troubling silence: The Court gave the ECI the benefit of every doubt during the SIR. The judges’ remarks reflect a disquiet the Court must now address.
2. Pending cases: The Court is hearing cases on how the SIR was conducted and on the ECI’s appointment process and functioning.
3. Form 6 changes: The Court has said it did not approve changes to Form 6, the application for registering new voters, which made registration harder.
4. Internal decision-making: The Court wants answers from the ECI on how decisions were taken inside the Commission.
5. Article 324 record: The Court has a strong record of upholding Article 324, which secures the ECI. Keeping that record requires it to keep questioning the ECI.

Challenges

1. Statutory right only: The right to vote is a statutory right, which weakens a voter’s challenge to deletion. Eg. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006).
2. Executive-led appointments: The selection panel for Election Commissioners carries a government majority, which feeds doubts about independence.
3. Document burden: Migrants, the poor and married women who moved often lack the papers the SIR demands.
4. No recorded dissent: Decisions taken by one member leave no public record of the other members’ views.

Way Forward

1. Collective decisions: The ECI should take every SIR decision by a recorded vote of all its members.
2. Notice before deletion: No name should leave the roll without individual notice and a hearing.
3. Wider documents: The ECI should accept commonly held identity documents, including Aadhaar, as proof for inclusion.
4. Time-bound hearings: The Supreme Court should fix a schedule to decide the SIR petitions before the next revised rolls are final.

Conclusion

The SIR has turned a body built to include voters into one accused of excluding them, and the Court’s restraint has let that drift continue. Whether the Court tests how the Commission reached its decisions will show if it still acts as the voter’s last guard.

Back2Basics: Article 324

1. Core power: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the ECI.
2. Composition: The ECI has a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and such other Election Commissioners as the President fixes. It has been multi-member since 1993.
3. Removal protection: The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge.
4. Residuary power: The Court has read Article 324 as letting the ECI act where law is silent, but never against a statute.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”