Subject: Judiciary

Why in the News?

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India unanimously upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a massive, door-to-door voter list verification and clean-up exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Its core philosophy is to ensure that “no eligible citizen is left out while no ineligible person is included in the Electoral Roll“.

The ECI typically uses two different methods to maintain voter lists:

1. Summary Revision (Routine): Done annually or before minor elections. It updates the voter list mostly at a desk level, adding new 18-year-olds or processing forms submitted voluntarily by citizens without visiting every home.
2. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An extraordinary, physically demanding exercise. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must physically visit every single household in a designated region to manually verify the identity and status of every registered voter.

The Step-by-Step SIR Process:

1. Pre-Enumeration: The ECI prints unique, pre-filled Enumeration Forms (EFs) for every registered voter using existing databases.
2. House-to-House Verification: Government-appointed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) make at least three distinct visits to every home. They hand over the EFs, help family members link entries with older historical lists, and note down changes.
3. Data Collection: The BLOs mark down and flag voters who fall into the “ASDD” category: Absent, Shifted, Dead, or Duplicate. New eligible voters are provided Form 6 to register immediately.
4. Draft and Hearings: A purged “Draft Electoral Roll” is published. Anyone whose name is dropped or flagged is issued an official notice and given a fair hearing to provide supportive documentation (like Aadhaar, government IDs, or old birth records) to prove their eligibility.
5. Final Roll Publication: Once all claims, disputes, and appeals are legally settled by District Magistrates, the finalized, clean voter list is published.

Why has the Supreme Court upheld Bihar’s SIR as constitutionally valid?

1. Constitutional Mandate: Recognises that the ECI has a constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections, which requires maintaining accurate and updated electoral rolls.
2. Citizenship Requirement: Affirms that citizenship constitutes a precondition for enrolment in electoral rolls, making scrutiny of citizenship legally permissible during roll revision.
3. Article 324 Authority: Strengthens the ECI’s powers under Article 324, which grants superintendence, direction, and control over elections.
4. Electoral Integrity: Accepts that electoral democracy depends not merely on polling but also on accurate voter identification and authentic electoral rolls.
5. Judicial Validation: Rejects the argument that SIR amounts to a “backdoor citizenship screening exercise”, holding that such verification falls within EC’s legitimate powers.

Why did Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision become politically and legally controversial?

1. Voter Exclusion Concerns: Critics argued that SIR risked excluding legitimate voters through stringent verification measures.
2. Citizenship Screening Allegation: Petitioners claimed the exercise indirectly imposed a citizenship verification process under the guise of electoral revision.
3. Pending Judicial Challenge: The second phase of SIR commenced even while legal challenges remained pending before the Supreme Court, intensifying political contestation.
4. Political Opposition: Opposition parties termed the verdict a setback for electoral inclusiveness and democratic participation.
5. Federal Implications: Concerns emerged regarding possible replication of such exercises in other States, potentially altering electoral politics.

What constitutional and legal reasoning did the Supreme Court rely upon?

1. Electoral Roll Purity: The Court held that maintaining a clean electoral roll remains essential to constitutional democracy.
2. Constitutional Competence: Recognised ECI’s authority to examine citizenship issues only for electoral enrolment purposes, without replacing statutory citizenship authorities.
3. Citizenship Adjudication: Clarified that disputed citizenship cases requiring determination under the Citizenship Act, 1955 must be referred to competent authorities.
4. Representation of the People Framework: Linked EC’s powers to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, governing electoral registration.
5. Judicial Interpretation of Article 324: Expanded the interpretation of Article 324 as a continuous supervisory power extending beyond election-day management.

How serious were inaccuracies in Bihar’s electoral rolls that justified the SIR exercise?

1. Large-Scale Migration: The Court recognised substantial migration patterns affecting voter records.
2. Duplicate Entries: Accepted concerns regarding repeated duplication of voter names, creating inaccuracies.
3. Demographic Change: Acknowledged shifts in population and residence affecting electoral eligibility.
4. Death and Non-reporting: Identified failures in removing deceased voters due to inadequate reporting systems.
5. Massive Scale of Electoral Revision: Bihar’s final electoral roll published in September 2024 recorded nearly 7.42 crore electors, compared with approximately 7.89 crore voters notified in June 2025, indicating substantial revision.
6. Purged Voter Data: Around 65 lakh electors were reportedly excluded after verification, making the exercise politically sensitive and administratively significant.

Does the judgment expand the Election Commission’s institutional power?

1. Institutional Strengthening: Enhances EC’s constitutional legitimacy in undertaking intensive roll verification exercises.
2. Supervisory Expansion: Interprets Article 324 broadly to include continuous oversight over electoral machinery.
3. Administrative Responsibility: Places responsibility on ECI to balance electoral purity with inclusiveness.
4. Future Precedent: Creates judicial precedent for similar voter verification exercises in other States.
5. Accountability Requirement: Simultaneously requires procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deletions or disenfranchisement.

What concerns remain regarding the implementation of SIR?

1. Risk of Exclusion: Vulnerable populations, migrants, marginalised communities, and those lacking documents may face exclusion risks.
2. Documentation Challenges: Citizenship and residence verification may disproportionately burden poorer citizens.
3. Administrative Discretion: Excessive discretion by local officials may produce errors or politically motivated exclusions.
4. Electoral Trust Deficit: Perceived bias in revision exercises may reduce confidence in electoral neutrality.
5. Democratic Balance: Ensures electoral integrity but requires safeguards to preserve universal franchise.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Bihar’s SIR reinforces the Election Commission’s constitutional authority to preserve electoral integrity through accurate voter rolls. However, the legitimacy of such exercises will depend on procedural fairness, transparency, and safeguards against wrongful exclusion. The challenge lies in balancing electoral purity with inclusive democratic participation.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2022] Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct

Linkage: This question links to the constitutional powers and institutional autonomy of the ECI under Article 324, which the present judgment substantially expands in the context of electoral roll verification.

Why in the News?

The debate around Article 142 has gained attention after the Supreme Court recognised safe travel on National Highways as part of Article 21 (Right to Life) in In Re: Phalodi Accident vs NHAI (2025). Acting suo motu, the Court flagged a serious concern, over 30% of road deaths occur on National Highways, despite their limited share in total road length. The judgment signals a stronger judicial role where existing laws fail to ensure justice.

What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

1. It states that the Supreme Court may pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice.
2. Article 142 is extraordinary, not unlimited. The Court has repeatedly said it cannot violate substantive law or the Constitution and must respect separation of powers.
3. Examples of Use:
   1. Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1991): SC used Article 142 for settlement-related directions.
   2. Ayodhya Verdict (2019): Court used Article 142 to allot alternative land for mosque construction.
   3. Divorce Cases: SC has dissolved marriages irretrievably even when statutory conditions were not fully met.
   4. Phalodi Accident Case (2025): Used to strengthen road safety and recognise safe highways under Article 21.

Why has Article 142 become central to the idea of “complete justice”?

1. Constitutional Empowerment: Article 142 authorises the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for ensuring complete justice where statutory mechanisms are inadequate.
2. Residual Jurisdiction: Functions as a constitutional reserve power in situations where ordinary legal procedures fail to address exceptional injustice.
3. Justice Beyond Technicalities: Enables equitable relief even where procedural or technical legal barriers exist.
4. Constitutional Safety Valve: Fills institutional gaps when existing laws are silent, rigid, or incapable of immediate grievance redressal.
5. Expansion of Rights-Based Jurisprudence: Strengthens substantive justice under Article 21, including newer dimensions such as road safety and dignified living.
6. Illustration: Highway Safety Judgment (2025): In In Re: Phalodi Accident vs NHAI (2025), the Court recognised safe and motorable roads as part of Right to Life, while responding to alarming road fatalities.

How did the Supreme Court justify judicial intervention in the highway safety case?

1. Suo Motu Cognisance: The Court initiated proceedings after two road accidents in November 2025 led to 34 deaths.
2. Right to Life Expansion: Interpreted Article 21 to include safe travel and well-maintained highways.
3. Governance Failure: Judicial intervention emerged against the backdrop of persistent road safety failures.
4. Striking Data: National Highways accounted for over 30% of road fatalities in India, despite comprising a limited share of total roads.
5. Policy Context: Government targets 50% reduction in road accident fatalities by 2030 through the 4E Strategy:
   1. Engineering: Improves road infrastructure and black-spot correction.
   2. Education: Strengthens road safety awareness.
   3. Enforcement: Ensures traffic regulation compliance.
   4. Emergency Medical Services: Supports rapid trauma response.
6. Mixed Outcomes: Despite a reported 11% decline in fatalities in 2024, accident deaths remain substantially high.

What is the constitutional meaning of “complete justice”?

1. Substantive Justice: Ensures outcomes aligned with fairness rather than rigid procedural compliance.
2. Natural Justice: Requires adherence to principles of fair hearing, reasonableness, and equity.
3. Constitutional Morality: Enables courts to protect constitutional values in emerging socio-legal contexts.
4. Dynamic Interpretation: Adapts legal remedies to changing social realities where statutes lag behind societal needs.
5. Institutional Trust: Strengthens public confidence by preventing denial of justice due to legal loopholes.
6. Constitutional Intent: Reflects the framers’ objective of preserving justice even in legally exceptional situations.

Can High Courts also exercise powers similar to Article 142?

1. Constitutional Difference: High Courts do not possess powers identical to Article 142.
2. Judicial Clarification: In Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, the Supreme Court held that Article 226 powers of High Courts are not co-extensive with Article 142 powers.
3. Broader Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts may still deliver equitable relief under Article 226 for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights.
4. Institutional Limitation: High Courts remain constrained by statutory frameworks to a greater extent than the Supreme Court.
5. Functional Similarity: Both institutions pursue justice, but the Supreme Court possesses wider constitutional discretion.

What judicial principles regulate the exercise of Article 142?

1. Extraordinary Nature: Article 142 operates as an exceptional power and not an ordinary judicial mechanism.
2. Judicial Restraint: Courts exercise caution to avoid institutional excess.
3. Faith and Trust Principle: Judicial legitimacy depends upon restrained and principled use of extraordinary authority.
4. Natural Justice Requirement: Fairness remains indispensable in all judicial interventions.
5. Judicial Precedent: In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, the Court recognised Article 142 as distinct from ordinary law.
6. Limited Exercise Principle: In Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, the Court emphasised cautious application of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Does Article 142 strengthen justice or undermine separation of powers?

1. Judicial Activism: Supports proactive constitutional interpretation where governance gaps persist.
2. Institutional Corrective: Responds to administrative inaction or legislative silence.
3. Separation of Powers Concern: Critics argue frequent reliance on Article 142 risks judicial encroachment into executive and legislative domains.
4. Procedural Bypass Criticism: Courts may bypass established statutory frameworks while granting remedies.
5. Counterargument: Judicial intervention becomes necessary where evolving social issues outpace legislation.
6. Illustration: Social Change: Courts have intervened in matters involving rights, dignity, and emerging social realities where existing laws proved inadequate.

How has judicial precedent shaped the doctrine of complete justice?

1. Equitable Justice Principle: In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, the Court held that the Constitution seeks substantive justice beyond procedural rigidity.
2. Legal Gap Filling: Article 142 addresses situations where legal systems fail to provide direct remedies.
3. Precedent-Based Expansion: Judicial decisions have progressively broadened the operational meaning of “complete justice”.
4. Balance with Constitutionalism: Courts continue to emphasise limits to avoid institutional imbalance.

Case	Contribution
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)	Recognised independent scope of Article 142
Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003)	Reinforced substantive justice and natural justice
Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009)	Clarified High Courts cannot exercise Article 142 powers
Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011)	Emphasised restraint in Article 142 use
In Re: Phalodi Accident v. NHAI (2025)	Linked safe highways with Article 21

What are the criticisms of Article 142?

1. Judicial Overreach: Expands the Court’s role beyond interpretation into policy-making, raising concerns of institutional overreach.
2. Weakens Separation of Powers: Allows the judiciary to enter domains traditionally reserved for the Legislature or Executive.
3. Bypassing Statutory Framework: Enables relief beyond existing laws, sometimes diluting Parliament-made procedures.
4. Ambiguous Scope: The term “complete justice” lacks clear constitutional limits, creating scope for subjective interpretation.
5. Democratic Accountability Concerns: Unelected judges making wide-ranging decisions may raise questions of democratic legitimacy.

Conclusion

Article 142 reflects the Constitution’s commitment to ensuring justice where statutory remedies prove inadequate. However, constitutional legitimacy requires a careful balance between judicial innovation and institutional restraint. The enduring challenge lies in preserving the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of justice without unsettling the constitutional equilibrium among organs of the State.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities

Linkage: The PYQ directly tests the tension between judicial activism, judicial overreach, and separation of powers, the core debate surrounding Article 142. Article 142 embodies the same dilemma: Should courts intervene to ensure complete justice when governance fails, or does it amount to judicial legislation?

Why in the News?

Recent oral remarks by the Chief Justice of India during a court hearing, and the clarification that followed, have revived debate on the limits of judicial remarks from the bench. The issue is important because oral observations now spread quickly through media and social platforms, often influencing public opinion before a final court judgment is delivered.

Why Does the Distinction Between Oral Remarks and Judicial Orders Matter?

Oral remarks are observations, questions, or comments made by judges during court hearings to test arguments and clarify issues. Judicial orders/judgments are formal, reasoned, and legally binding decisions issued by the court after due consideration.

1. Institutional Discipline: Ensures judicial legitimacy rests on reasoned orders rather than spontaneous courtroom observations.
2. Due Process: Prevents prejudicial comments from influencing ongoing proceedings before facts are fully adjudicated.
3. Judicial Neutrality: Protects courts from appearing partisan, emotional, or personally opinionated.
4. Public Trust: Prevents informal comments from shaping public perception in ways inconsistent with final judicial reasoning.
5. Digital Amplification: Makes oral remarks consequential because media circulation often precedes written judgments.

What Constitutional and Ethical Standards Govern Judicial Speech from the Bench?

Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997)

1. Institutional Restraint: The Full Court adopted the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life on 7 May 1997, directing judges not to enter public debate or express views on matters likely to arise for judicial determination.
2. Judicial Discipline: Item 8 restrains judges from public commentary on political or controversial issues affecting impartiality.

Benjamin Cardozo’s Judicial Standard

1. Reasoned Adjudication: Judges must derive inspiration from “consecrated principles,” not personal emotions or impulsive sentiment.
2. Institutional Method: Judicial discretion must remain disciplined by legal tradition, analogy, and constitutional order.
3. Core Principle: Bench remarks must test legal positions rather than become vehicles for personal commentary.

Constitutional Standards: The Oath of Office (Third Schedule)

1. Before a judge takes their seat, they swear an oath under the Third Schedule of the Indian Constitution. They vow to perform their duties “without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.”

Article 211 & Article 121 (Mutual Immunity): The Constitution sets up a strict separation of powers through a “speech immunity” pact between the Judiciary and Parliament:

1. Article 121 bars Parliament from discussing the conduct of any Supreme Court or High Court judge (except during removal proceedings).
2. Article 211 applies the same restriction to State Legislatures.

Global Standards Adopted by India

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002): Formulated by global chief justices (and heavily endorsed by the Supreme Court of India), this is the international gold standard for judicial behavior. It highlights six core values, three of which directly govern speech from the bench:

Value	The Judicial Speech Rule
Impartiality	A judge must ensure that their speech, both in the courtroom and in judgments, does not manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group.
Propriety	A judge must accept personal restrictions that might seem burdensome to ordinary citizens. Their language must remain courteous, patient, and dignified at all times.
Equality	A judge must not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds like race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

How Did the Supreme Court Clarify the Status of Oral Remarks in the Vijaya Bhaskar Case?

Background of the Case

1. COVID-19 Context: In April 2021, the Madras High Court, while hearing a petition concerning COVID protocol violations during election rallies, criticised the Election Commission.
2. Sharp Oral Observation: The Bench remarked that the Election Commission was “singularly responsible” for the situation and “should probably be booked for murder charges.”

Supreme Court Intervention

1. Media Reporting Challenge: The Election Commission challenged media reporting of these oral observations.
2. Case: Chief Election Commissioner v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar (2021).

Key Judicial Standard Established

1. Bench Questions: Courts may ask difficult or provocative questions to test legal arguments.
2. Language Restriction: Judicial freedom does not extend to “scathing language” directed against institutions or individuals crossing recognised judicial standards.
3. Institutional Distinction: Courts clarified that formal opinions emerge through written judgments, not oral observations during hearings.
4. Judicial Creativity: The Court accepted spontaneity during hearings but emphasised constitutional restraint.

Important Principle

1. Dual Test: The standard governing both bench questions and judicial language derives from judicial discipline and restraint.

When Do Judicial Oral Remarks Raise Questions of Institutional Restraint?

Justice Antonin Scalia (2003, University of Texas Admissions Hearing)

1. Controversial Comment: Suggested some African-American students may perform better at less competitive institutions.
2. Institutional Criticism: The remark attracted widespread criticism for prejudicial implications.
3. No Retraction: Justice Scalia later reiterated the position.

Justice S.A. Bobde (2021 Rape Bail Hearing)

1. Insensitive Observation: During a rape-related bail hearing in Maharashtra, Justice Bobde reportedly asked whether the accused would marry the victim.
2. Public Backlash: The remark drew criticism for trivialising sexual violence.
3. Subsequent Clarification: Court clarified the statement had been misunderstood.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (2016 US Presidential Election)

1. Political Comment: Called Donald Trump a “faker.”
2. Retraction: Later expressed regret, recognising judges must avoid entering political debates.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Marriage Equality Case, 2023)

1. Oral Observation: Suggested absolute notions of “man” and “woman” were socially constructed.
2. Final Judgment Contrast: Six months later, the written judgment reflected a different legal position, showing oral remarks need not indicate final judicial reasoning.

Chief Justice Surya Kant Controversy (2025)

1. Current Trigger: Remarks concerning senior advocate designation reignited debate over judicial language and institutional limits.

How Has Technology Changed the Consequences of Judicial Oral Remarks?

1. Instant Dissemination: Oral observations now circulate immediately through television, digital media, and social media platforms.
2. Narrative Formation: Public opinion often forms before courts deliver reasoned judgments.
3. Reputational Impact: Institutions and individuals may face reputational injury from informal remarks.
4. Judicial Pressure: Courts increasingly face pressure to clarify statements made during hearings.
5. Institutional Risk: Blurs distinction between courtroom exchange and authoritative judicial pronouncement.

Can Judicial Spontaneity Coexist with Institutional Restraint?

1. Argument Testing: Courts require freedom to ask uncomfortable questions and challenge arguments.
2. Temperate Language: Judicial speech must avoid ridicule, humiliation, or prejudicial framing.
3. Clarification Mechanism: Later clarifications may reduce controversy but cannot fully erase public impact.
4. Institutional Balance: Judges must preserve spontaneity without compromising constitutional dignity.
5. Core Challenge: Maintaining the distinction between testing legal positions and institutional commentary.

Conclusion

Judicial institutions derive legitimacy not only from constitutional authority but also from restraint in speech and conduct. While oral remarks help courts test arguments, maintaining a clear distinction between bench observations and written judgments remains essential to preserve judicial neutrality, public trust, and institutional credibility in the digital age.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2023] Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy.” Comment.

Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of judicial independence, institutional credibility, and constitutional restraint in democratic governance. The article examines how judicial conduct and oral remarks can affect institutional neutrality and public trust, both essential for judicial independence.