Election Commission's Constitutional Mandate Is Not All-Pervasive

(MENAFN- The Arabian Post) By K Raveendran

The most important takeaway from the Supreme Court's stand on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls is a reminder that while the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the constitutional authority to take all necessary steps to ensure free and fair elections, it does not have the license to act with unrestrained discretion. The court's refusal to stay the revision process might appear at first glance to be an endorsement of the Commission's initiative, but the underlying tone and substance of the judgment are anything but a blank cheque. On the contrary, the court has issued what can only be described as a firm warning against arbitrariness, reminding the Commission that constitutional autonomy does not mean constitutional impunity.

This development is particularly significant in light of the growing perception that the ECI has, in recent years, veered into territories beyond its constitutional remit. In the Bihar case, the Commission's attempt to link the revision of electoral rolls with questions of citizenship invited the court's sharp rebuke. The bench made it unequivocally clear that the determination of citizenship falls outside the jurisdiction of the ECI. By making this assertion, the court not only placed a legal check on the Bihar exercise but also raised a larger, more pressing question about the creeping overreach of electoral authorities in India's democratic machinery.

The decision assumes added significance given the broader political and institutional context in which it has emerged. The Election Commission has been facing mounting scrutiny from multiple quarters-notably from the Opposition-for what is seen as its increasing alignment with the executive's agenda. Central to this criticism is the ongoing controversy surrounding electronic voting machines (EVMs), with senior opposition leader Rahul Gandhi becoming the most persistent voice questioning both their credibility and the Commission's impartiality. His allegations have consistently touched on the larger theme of erosion of trust in democratic institutions, where the ECI occupies a crucial place. By raising these concerns, Gandhi is not merely waging a political campaign but calling attention to a crisis of confidence in one of India's key constitutional bodies.

See also Well-Curated Myth Of Modi's Friendship With Trump Explodes Like A Cluster Bomb

What makes the Bihar episode more than just a state-level controversy is the nature of the power being exercised and questioned. The ECI's power to conduct electoral roll revisions is well-established. However, the issue arises when the basis for such revision seems to originate not from administrative necessity but from opaque criteria or questionable motivations. In Bihar, the SIR process raised eyebrows because of its timing, the manner of implementation, and the demographic implications it was likely to have. The fact that the Commission attempted to conflate electoral roll management with citizenship verification hinted at an intention that extended beyond the scope of its constitutional mandate. That the Supreme Court has had to step in and draw a line illustrates how easily institutional overreach can become normalized if left unchecked.

These concerns take on added urgency in the context of the central government's push for the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal, a sweeping reform that seeks to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. On the face of it, this idea promises efficiency and cost-effectiveness. However, critics have argued that it threatens to tilt the already delicate balance of power in favour of the central government. The principal mechanism for conducting these elections would, of course, be the ECI. Hence, any doubts about the Commission's neutrality become magnified when seen through the lens of a synchronized electoral calendar.

What the former CJI essentially flagged is that the One Nation, One Election model could, under the wrong circumstances, convert the Election Commission into a quasi-sovereign entity with minimal accountability. The Bihar case is therefore not just about one state or one exercise. It is symptomatic of a larger trend-an institutional drift towards over-centralisation, cloaked in the garb of administrative streamlining. It is precisely this trend that the judiciary's intervention seeks to arrest. By making it clear that the ECI must confine itself to its constitutionally defined lane, the Supreme Court is also trying to reset the equilibrium between autonomy and accountability. The Commission may be autonomous, but that does not place it above scrutiny. If anything, its autonomy is meant to insulate it from political interference, not to free it from constitutional discipline.

See also All Eyes On What Iran Does To Oil Traffic Through Strait Of Hormuz

At another level, this judicial moment could also be read as a quiet vote of confidence in India's democratic resilience. Even as political actors clash and institutions are tested, the court's ability to function as a constitutional watchdog remains intact. That said, the very fact that such a warning had to be issued to the ECI suggests that the red lines of institutional propriety are being approached with dangerous regularity. The recurrence of such confrontations between the court and the Commission also hints at a growing lack of trust between various arms of the democratic state.

In a democracy as large and diverse as India's, the legitimacy of the electoral process rests not just on technical soundness but on public perception of fairness. If large sections of the electorate begin to suspect that voter lists are being revised selectively, or that machines are being tampered with, or that one institution is acquiring undue control over the electoral calendar, then democracy itself stands weakened. What Rahul Gandhi and others are articulating in their critiques is a sense of that democratic fragility. Their warnings might be politically motivated, but they are not devoid of substance. (IPA Service )

MENAFN12072025000152002308ID1109792990