Examine the doctrine of proportionality as applied by the Supreme Court to review the exercise of the Election Commission's plenary powers under Article 324.

Q. Examine the doctrine of proportionality as applied by the Supreme Court to review the exercise of the Election Commission's plenary powers under Article 324. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 324 vests in the Election Commission of India (ECI) the superintendence, direction and control of elections — a plenary, residuary power. Proportionality is the standard by which courts test whether such wide power, though validly held, has been exercised excessively. Its most recent application is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) judgment of May 2026.

Article 324: plenary, but not unreviewable - Article 324 read with Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950, allows the ECI to direct a special revision of rolls for reasons to be recorded [3]; both were invoked for the Bihar SIR, with 1 July 2025 as the qualifying date [2]. - In Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI (2026 INSC 564, 27 May 2026), the Court read Article 324 comprehensively as covering the entire electoral process, yet still subjected the ECI's order to structured judicial review [1].

How proportionality was applied - Legitimate aim — accuracy and credibility of the roll, traceable to free and fair elections under Articles 324–326 [1]. - Suitability and necessity — house-to-house enumeration held a rational means, and a State-wide revision the least restrictive option available [1]. - Balancing through safeguards — phased rollout, draft-roll publication, and the claims-and-objections plus appeal stages were treated as procedural cushions against wrongful exclusion [4][5].

Examining the standard as applied - Strength: it displaces the "plenary means unreviewable" claim, compelling the ECI to justify means against ends. - Limitation: proportionality was largely tested on the design of the exercise rather than its outcomes, where documentary burdens fall hardest on the poor and migrant. - Timing: review concluded after the Bihar poll and the phased extension elsewhere, weakening the remedy [4].

Proportionality has thus usefully converted Article 324 from an assertion of untrammelled authority into a reviewable, reason-giving power. Its promise now lies in timeliness and evidence — courts testing deletion data and the working of appeals, not design alone. Applied so, judicial review reinforces rather than substitutes the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564 (Supreme Court of India, 27 May 2026) — Article 324 covers the entire electoral process; SIR upheld as satisfying legitimate aim, non-excessive means and least-restrictive-option limbs of proportionality 2. PIB, "ECI to begin Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar" — SIR ordered under Article 324 and Section 21, RPA 1950; qualifying date 1 July 2025; stated objective of inclusion of eligible and exclusion of ineligible electors 3. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (India Code) — Section 21(3) power to direct a special revision of electoral rolls for reasons to be recorded 4. PIB, "ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters" — phased rollout beyond Bihar and the procedural safeguards built into the exercise 5. PIB, "Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar Successfully Completed" — draft roll publication, claims and objections and appeal stages in the Bihar SIR