Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission's power to revise electoral rolls. To what extent should such an administrative exercise be subject to judicial scrutiny?

Article 324 vests the "superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls" in the Election Commission of India (ECI) [1]. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and disputes over bulk Form 7 filings show that this power, though wide, is administrative in character — and therefore reviewable on process, not policy.

Constitutional basis

• Article 324(1) places roll preparation squarely with the ECI, making it a constitutional rather than delegated function [1].
• Article 325 (no exclusion on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex) and Article 326 (adult suffrage) supply the purpose: an accurate, non-discriminatory roll [1].
• Article 324 also operates as a reservoir of power where the statute is silent, enabling exercises like SIR that the law does not expressly name.

Statutory basis

• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs qualifications of voters and roll preparation; rolls are prepared and revised by an Electoral Registration Officer appointed by the ECI, with provision for special revision of a constituency's roll [2].
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe the forms — Form 6 (inclusion), Form 7 (objection/deletion), Form 8 (correction) — and require notice and an opportunity to be heard before deletion on grounds other than death [3].
• Under SIR, house-to-house enumeration removes deceased, shifted and duplicate entries; the Bihar exercise deleted about 69 lakh names, leaving a roll of 7.43 crore, before the pan-India rollout announced by CEC Gyanesh Kumar [4].

Extent of judicial scrutiny

• Limited: Article 329(b) bars judicial interference once the electoral process begins, and courts should not second-guess the Commission's methodology, timelines or expert judgment [1].
• Justified: roll revision precedes the poll notification, so writ jurisdiction survives — particularly where due process is breached, as with unreasoned bulk objections filed without notice to electors [3].
• The test is procedural regularity and non-arbitrariness, not substituting the court's view of who belongs on the roll.

Thus the ECI's power is plenary in design but conditioned by statutory due process. Judicial scrutiny should be calibrated — deferential to the Commission's expertise, yet firm in enforcing notice, reasoned orders and appeal rights. Strengthening internal safeguards, such as verification thresholds for bulk objections and transparent publication of deletion lists, would secure Article 325's promise of an inclusive roll while keeping courts a check of last resort.