Context

• The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls raises a profound constitutional question about democracy, voting rights, and institutional responsibility.
• It concerns the Supreme Court’s approach: instead of deciding the legality of the exercise, the Court has permitted its continuation while issuing operational directions.
• Such conduct risks allowing a potentially unlawful process to become irreversible, thereby converting judicial review into retrospective validation.
• At stake is the distinction between adjudication and supervision. In a constitutional democracy, courts determine legality; they do not manage governance.

Judicial Role vs Administrative Role

• Courts exist to enforce judicial review, ensuring that executive and statutory actions comply with constitutional norms.
• However, operational guidance on identification documents, procedure, and implementation indicates a shift toward administrative oversight.
• This transformation moves the Court away from its essential function and risks reducing the judiciary to a supervisory body rather than a guardian of rights.
• Delay compounds the problem. When implementation proceeds during prolonged hearings, a fait accompli emerges: reversal becomes practically impossible.
• Consequently, legal scrutiny loses practical effect, undermining the rule of law and weakening institutional legitimacy.

Constitutional Question: Power of the Election Commission

• The Representation of the People Act authorizes targeted revision for specific constituencies and recorded reasons.
• A nationwide or state-wide exercise, however, extends beyond localized correction and becomes a broad verification mechanism.
• This expansion effectively transforms a limited statutory power into general authority.
• The Election Commission therefore appears to operate beyond intended limits, raising concerns about separation of powers and statutory interpretation.
• The revision process begins resembling a citizenship determination exercise rather than electoral maintenance.

Presumption of Citizenship vs Presumption of Suspicion

• Democratic systems rest upon a presumption of citizenship. Individuals are treated as lawful members of the polity unless specific evidence suggests otherwise.
• The SIR reverses this assumption by requiring all voters to establish eligibility.
• Instead of individualized notice and evidence-based suspicion, mass verification imposes a universal burden.
• This inversion alters the relationship between the State and the individual. Rights shift from inherent entitlements to conditional approvals, challenging the foundations of citizenship and political participation.

Implications of Large-Scale Verification

• Risk of Disenfranchisement
  • Large-scale verification carries consequences for voter rolls. Reports of deletions and objection procedures create a risk of widespread exclusion.
  • Voting represents the primary mechanism of democratic expression, and removal from electoral lists undermines representative governance.
  • Such exclusions constitute disenfranchisement, not merely clerical correction.
  • Electoral participation defines democratic legitimacy; therefore, any process producing arbitrary exclusion affects democratic stability and the protection of fundamental rights.
• Social Inequality and Documentation
  • Documentation requirements operate unevenly in a society marked by inequality. Access to records varies across poverty, gender, caste, and marginalized
  • Administrative neutrality may therefore produce unequal outcomes.
  • A documentation-heavy process disproportionately burdens vulnerable populations. Constitutional equality requires attention to material realities, not merely formal uniformity.
  • Policies that intensify inequality conflict with principles of substantive equality and social justice.

Larger Democratic Concern

• The broader issue concerns the transformation of governance priorities. Administrative efficiency risks overshadowing individual dignity.
• When individuals must repeatedly justify belonging, the balance shifts toward bureaucratic authority.
• The absence of a definitive ruling allows uncertainty to persist.
• Without clear constitutional limits, procedural mechanisms may evolve into tools of exclusion.
• The matter therefore implicates democratic structure itself rather than only election management.

Conclusion

• The Special Intensive Revision raises fundamental questions about citizenship, institutional responsibility, and democratic participation.
• A constitutional democracy depends upon secure rights and meaningful participation.
• Only definitive constitutional scrutiny can ensure that electoral verification strengthens democracy rather than restricts it.