Electoral roll integrity is the foundation of free and fair elections. Discuss the role of the judiciary in reviewing the ECI's administrative choices in this regard.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" over electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets it order a special revision "in such manner as it may think fit" [1]. The 2025-26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) showed the judiciary's role: it keeps this wide discretion tied to inclusion, not just roll purification.

Judiciary as constitutional boundary-setter

• Mandate clarified: In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the SIR under Article 324 and the RP Act, 1950. It held that departing from routine revision procedure does not by itself make the exercise invalid, because the exercise serves free and fair elections [4].
• Limits on plenary power: Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) held that Article 324 powers must be used within the law and fairly. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) barred deleting listed voters without notice and a hearing.

Judiciary as guarantor of procedural fairness

• Transparency: About 65 lakh names were left out of Bihar's draft roll. The Court's August 2025 interim orders required the ECI to publish the deleted names with reasons, searchable by EPIC number [3].
• Easier re-entry: The Court directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar for claims, easing the 11-document requirement [3].
• Burden of proof: Voters on the 2003 roll needed to show only that entry, while later entrants had to produce documents [2]. Judicial scrutiny exposed this shift of the burden from the State to the citizen.

Limits of the judicial role

• Deference: Courts review the fairness of the process, not policy design. Article 329(b) bars interference once the election process begins, so remedies must come early.
• Reactive correction: The key safeguards came through litigation, not from the ECI's original design. This made correction piecemeal and slow.
• Institutional strain: Repeated petitions risk turning routine administration into litigation and weakening public trust in the ECI.

The judiciary has played a dual role. It has confirmed the ECI's power to clean the rolls while insisting that cleaning must not become exclusion. The ECI should now make the court-ordered safeguards standard practice:

• publish deletion reasons by default;
• accept Aadhaar at enumeration as proof of identity and residence;
• report gross and net figures separately.

Judicial review would then remain a backstop rather than a substitute for ECI's own design. This keeps universal adult franchise under Article 326 as the true test of roll integrity, in line with SDG 16.7 on inclusive decision-making.