Critically analyse the scope of judicial intervention in electoral matters in light of Article 329 and recent Supreme Court interventions in roll revision.

Under Article 329(b), an election to Parliament or a State Legislature can be challenged only through an election petition [1]. Roll revision, however, happens before the election process begins. This leaves courts room to act. The Supreme Court has used that room in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) cases while largely deferring to the ECI.

Article 329: Scope of the Bar

• In N.P. Ponnuswami (1952), the Court held that "election" covers the whole process up to the result, so courts cannot interrupt it midway [2].
• In Mohinder Singh Gill (1978), the Court held that the ECI's Art. 324 powers can be reviewed, but such challenges must wait for the election petition.
• Art. 243ZG puts a similar bar on court challenges to municipal polls [1].

Recent Interventions in Roll Revision

• Bihar SIR (ADR v. ECI, 2026):
• The Court first directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as an identity document.
• It then upheld the SIR as proportionate under S.21(3) RPA 1950 read with Art. 324.

• Cases of doubtful citizenship must go to the competent authority after notice and hearing, preferably before the next election [3].

• West Bengal: 38.31 lakh appeals are before 19 tribunals, and only about 3% have been decided. The Court said orally that restoration appeals should be heard first and that it would look for a "via media" (middle path) [4].

Critical Assessment

Strengths

• It protects the right to vote (Art. 326) while relief is still possible [1].
• It enforces procedural fairness: a name on the roll is presumed valid, and deleting it requires a hearing [3][5].
• It questions vague deletion grounds such as "logical discrepancies" [4].

Limitations

• Deference: the Bihar verdict limited Lal Babu Hussein to individual adjudication and kept it out of system-wide revision. This makes mass deletions easier to defend [3].
• Remedy gap: oral remarks are not binding, and petitioners warn the backlog could take more than 12 years to clear [4].
• Closing window: once polls are notified, Arts. 329/243ZG apply. Relief therefore comes piecemeal and under deadline pressure.

Way Forward

• Time limits for roll appeals set by law, and more tribunals to match the caseload.
• A specific written reason for every deletion.
• Provisional voting for appellants deleted only because of data mismatches.

Article 329 restrains courts during elections, not before them, so the pre-poll roll stage is where judicial review legitimately operates. Courts should respect the ECI's Art. 324 mandate while insisting on fair, time-bound procedure. That way they protect both free and fair elections, which are part of the basic structure, and universal adult suffrage.