The judiciary's failure to intervene in a timely manner in matters of electoral administration amounts to validating a fait accompli. Discuss with reference to the SIR judgment.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, drawing on Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950 [4] and the ECI's plenary powers under Article 324, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI on 27 May 2026 [1]. The timing of that verdict, more than its content, drives the criticism.

How delayed review can validate a fait accompli

• Sequencing: Bihar's SIR ran from June to September 2025 and was declared complete before the Assembly poll [2]; the verdict came roughly six months after voting and government formation [1], leaving no restitutive remedy even had flaws been found.
• Irreversibility of exclusion: a deleted elector who could not vote cannot be compensated afterwards; relief becomes declaratory rather than real.
• Replication before adjudication: SIR was extended in phases to further States and Union Territories [3] while the core legality was still pending, enlarging the settled ground the Court would later have to disturb.
• Review conducted largely in theory rather than on the implementation record weakens accountability for administrative excess.

The countervailing view

• Judicial restraint during an ongoing election process is a settled constitutional convention, not neglect; premature injunctions can themselves derail a poll.
• Interim orders were supervisory but substantive — mandating disclosure of deletion data secured transparency in real time.
• The final ruling applied the proportionality test — reasonable nexus, necessity and adequate procedural safeguards [1] — a reasoned standard, not a rubber stamp.
• Roll purification serves the genuine constitutional objective of free and fair elections [2].

Delayed adjudication does not nullify judicial review, but it does shift the remedy from prevention to post-facto validation. The corrective lies in time-bound hearings before roll finalisation, transparent grievance redressal and pre-notification consultation with stakeholders — ensuring that Article 324's mandate for free and fair elections is secured through due process, not merely certified after the fact.