Can civil-society inquiries by retired judges substitute for formal accountability of constitutional bodies? Discuss with reference to the SIR of electoral rolls.

The Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) is a private lawyers' body. It has set up a panel of former Supreme Court and High Court judges to inquire into the design, implementation and consequences of the ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [1]. The panel can supplement formal accountability but cannot replace it.

Why such inquiries arise: the accountability gap

• The Supreme Court upheld SIR under Art. 324 and Sec. 21(3), RP Act, 1950 [2]. It ruled on the ECI's power, not on whether each deletion was fair.
• In Bihar, enumeration forms covered 7.24 crore of 7.89 crore electors. The largest group of deletions, 31.5 lakh "permanently migrated" names [3], is the hardest to verify and most likely to include migrant workers.
• The Court held that deletion is not a citizenship finding. It ordered citizenship-based cases to go to Citizenship Act authorities within four weeks [2], but named no body to monitor compliance.

What retired-judge panels can offer

• Field evidence: booth-level checks of wrongful exclusions that official data does not capture.
• Moral authority: former judges add credibility, which can rebuild public trust and push the ECI towards transparency.
• Reform inputs: for example, standard criteria to limit the discretion of Booth Level Officers.

Why they cannot substitute

• No legal force: LAFC is a private body. It cannot summon witnesses or records, and its findings bind no one [1].
• Cannot reopen a verdict: the Supreme Court has already weighed these concerns [2].
• Legitimacy risk: SIR is politically contested, so a self-appointed panel may be seen as partisan.
• Constitutional design: Art. 324 protects the ECI's autonomy so that it answers to courts and law, not private actors. Statutory remedies already exist, such as claims and objections on the draft roll [4].

Way forward

• The ECI should publish booth-wise deletion lists with reasons by default.
• Voter appeals should have fixed deadlines so they are decided before polling day.
• If the panel's December 2026 report [1] shows large-scale exclusion, the government should set up a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which can summon witnesses and records.
• The panel should publish its methodology to guard against charges of bias.

Inquiries by retired judges work best as an early-warning and evidence-gathering tool, but binding accountability comes only from formal institutions. Their findings should feed into courts, Parliament and statutory bodies. Pairing them with a more transparent ECI would uphold Art. 326's universal adult franchise and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive, accountable institutions.