Judicial monitoring of electoral roll revision: a necessary safeguard or an encroachment on the ECI's domain? Comment.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) control over electoral rolls. Article 326 guarantees every adult citizen the right to vote. In the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court has created appeal forums and asked for regular data. This makes judicial monitoring largely a necessary safeguard, as long as the Court supervises rather than manages.

Why monitoring is a necessary safeguard

• Scale of exclusion: West Bengal's SIR left out over 58 lakh electors at the enumeration stage. The final roll added back only about 1.82 lakh [3]. Deletion on this scale threatens adult suffrage.
• Independent appeal forum: Appellate tribunals headed by former High Court judges were set up under the Supreme Court's March 2026 order [2].
• Transparency precedent: In the Bihar SIR (2025), the Court ordered the ECI to publish deleted names with reasons. It also had the ECI accept Aadhaar as proof of identity for claims [4]. This lowered the paperwork barrier.
• Accountability gap: Only 1.26 lakh of 38.31 lakh appeals have been decided. The ECI has also given no clear answer on whether people with pending appeals can use the one-month Form 6 re-enrolment drive [1].

Why it may look like encroachment

• Constitutional domain: Article 324 gives the ECI full control over roll preparation. Article 329(b) shows the Constitution's preference for courts staying out of the electoral process.
• Micromanagement: When courts design forums and procedures, the ECI must wait for court approval, which slows time-bound revisions.
• Conflicting decisions: An official could accept a fresh Form 6 while the same voter's appeal is still before a court-created tribunal. The two bodies could then reach opposite decisions [1][2].
• Limited capacity: The court-created forums have decided barely 3% of appeals, so judicial design alone cannot fix the problem [1].

Balancing the two

• Division of roles: The Court sets standards (reasons for deletion, timelines, disclosure). The ECI keeps control of execution.
• ECI steps: Issue a written SOP (standard operating procedure) for people with pending appeals. Hear exclusion appeals first. Publish monthly disposal figures for each tribunal.

In the SIR, judicial monitoring has worked less as an encroachment and more as constitutional insurance for the franchise. The way forward is to write the Court's standards into the ECI's own rules, such as statutory time limits for appeals and proactive disclosure of deletions. Courts would then step in only as a last resort. This keeps both clean rolls and full inclusion in service of free and fair elections, which are part of the Constitution's basic structure.