The Supreme Court’s latest stamp of approval will be a major shot in the arm for the Election Commission of India and is likely to embolden it to conduct future Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls by brushing aside continuing concerns regarding the methods employed and the consequent disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters.
Like in the past when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party would rush to the defence of the besieged ECI, in the larger interest, it should refrain from swinging into action in matters relating to the ECI, as its spokesperson did after the judgment.
Such predictable, coordinated actions and reactions somehow go on to strengthen the prevalent suspicion of synchronisation and an alignment between the ruling party and the constitutional body.
The major changes brought about in the appointment process of the CEC and ECs in 2023 were perceived to have enabled the weakening of the ECI’s independence.
To begin with, there were misgivings among the public about the timing of the SIR, which was conducted a few months prior to the politically critical Bihar Assembly Elections in November 2025.
The manner in which it was conducted sowed seeds of suspicion regarding its intent. Media investigations revealed how lakhs of voters did not make it to the electoral rolls, prominent among whom were women, migrant workers and minorities.
The Opposition not only raised a hue and cry about the ECI trying to help the ruling NDA alliance in winning elections but also mounted a legal challenge.
The apex court’s cautionary words against the aggressive and hostile investigation style adopted by the ECI or the corrective measures prescribed did not seem to make a significant difference, given the scale of the operation and its consequences.
The Supreme Court’s conclusive verdict on the SIR belied the expectation in some quarters that it would be nuanced and well-rounded enough to restrain the ECI in future from exercising unbridled powers that are likely to adversely impact the poll body’s credibility and the integrity of the elections it conducts.
The verdict might open itself to criticism of literal and mechanical interpretation and being oblivious to the real-world consequences. The frequency of such judgments in critical cases could lead to unseemly interpretations, casting a shadow on the independence of the pillars of democracy.
When it comes to the contentious issue of the SIR being an indirect citizenship exercise, the apex court clarified that deletion from rolls on citizenship grounds is not tantamount to the declaration of a person as a non-citizen.
But it allowed the ECI to examine citizenship for the limited purpose of deletion from the list, but not the right to declare citizenship status, which will be in the realm of the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.
Accordingly, the court directed the ECI to refer such cases to the respective authority within four weeks. Though seemingly logical and judicially sound, this might open up a Pandora's box not only in Bihar but also in Assam, West Bengal and elsewhere.
The courts, in general, strive to be impartial and adhere to legal principles while relying on objective evidence to arrive at judicial conclusions.
Equally important, if not more, is the principle that judgments should not only safeguard but also be seen to be safeguarding the rights of citizens, including the right to vote, and promoting free and fair elections and, in turn, democracy.