The recent order of the Supreme Court of India in the matter concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is a timely reminder of the Court’s role as the ultimate guardian of democratic values.
The petitions before the Court alleged that nearly 65 lakh eligible voters risked exclusion from the rolls owing to defects in the ongoing revision. The Election Commission of India (ECI), however, defended its process, pointing to the statutory mechanism under the 1960 Rules, the availability of both online and offline claim procedures, and the involvement of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) nominated by political parties.
Yet, what troubled the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was the glaring mismatch between the scale of alleged exclusions and the minimal number of objections filed by BLAs. This raised a fundamental concern: is the revision exercise truly ensuring that every eligible citizen has an effective opportunity to protect their right to vote?
Reasserting the Right to Vote
While the right to vote in India is statutory, the Court has consistently recognized it as a reflection of constitutional guarantees of equality, participation, and democratic governance. By underscoring this link, the Court has reiterated that voting cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise, but must be safeguarded as part of the democratic fabric.
Directions that Matter
In its directions, the Court:
– Obliged all 12 recognized political parties in Bihar to instruct their BLAs to actively assist voters in filing claims and objections.
– Stressed that both physical and online avenues must remain open and accessible.
– Required the Chief Electoral Officer to implead political parties and secure their accountability in the process.
– Suggested transparency measures such as display of objection receipts on the ECI website.
Why the Order Matters
This order is an important precedent because it reinforces that voter inclusion is central to free and fair elections—exclusion, even by inadvertence, undermines democracy. It also highlights the constitutional role of the ECI, not merely as a regulator of elections but as a custodian of citizens’ franchise. Above all, it demonstrates the Supreme Court’s constitutional vigilance: stepping in not to administer the process itself but to ensure that it remains faithful to democratic and constitutional principles. As the matter is set for compliance in September, its outcome could shape the future of electoral roll management in India. For a democracy as vast and complex as ours, the message is unambiguous—the right to vote is too precious to be compromised by procedural lapses.
