Loading...
The knock on the Supreme Court’s door
This newspaper’s investigation that shone a light on the functioning of the Election Commission of India in the context of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has raised serious questions. They have to do with a multi-member body, a constitutional authority, shrinking, many a time, into a one-man show, undermining the checks and balances within. More fundamentally, these questions touch the citizen’s sacrosanct right to shape her own and the nation’s future through the right to vote. On Sunday, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan framed the issues in all their breadth and gravity. Large-scale disenfranchisement caused by the SIR, he said, is a violation of the Constitution, and detaching the citizen from the right to vote is like “taking out the soul from the body”. He referred to debates in the Constituent Assembly to underline the transformational vision and the constitutional guarantee. “… years of freedom struggle and the revolt against foreign rule made the adoption of universal adult franchise a natural choice and an essential ingredient of democracy…” Equal vote with equal value, regardless of identity and social location, was the first step in a new nation to achieve equality. As the Supreme Court takes up cases related to the modalities of the SIR, and the EC’s appointment process and functioning, it would do well to listen in to Justice Bhuyan’s outlining of what is at stake. Former SC judge Rohinton Fali Nariman underlined it: Also on Sunday, he said that the SIR’s removal of voters put the right to vote, which is at the “heart of our democracy”, in “great peril”.
These are not just the concerns of two individual judges, they reflect the disquiet the Supreme Court needs to address to repair the damage done by its troubling silence. The citizen’s fundamental right to participate in the electoral process has to be protected at all costs. But even as the EC went back on its own record of inclusiveness, even as it shifted the burden of proof onto the vulnerable voter and set up a hurdle race at every stage of the SIR, the Court kept giving it the benefit of every doubt. Going ahead, therefore, not just the EC, the Court is also on test.
Overall Analysis
The editorial examines concerns surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, particularly its possible impact on citizens’ right to vote. The central argument is that electoral institutions must protect, rather than weaken, the democratic participation of citizens.
The editorial begins with a critical and investigative tone. It raises questions about the functioning of a constitutional body that is supposed to operate through internal checks and balances. The phrase “shrinking, many a time, into a one-man show” is particularly effective. It uses contrast to suggest that although the Election Commission is a multi-member institution, decision-making may sometimes appear excessively concentrated.
The author then moves from institutional concerns to the larger constitutional principle of voting rights. The phrase “sacrosanct right” gives the right to vote a moral and constitutional significance. The reference to Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and the Constituent Assembly strengthens the argument by connecting the present controversy with the historical struggle for universal adult franchise. The metaphor “taking out the soul from the body” makes the consequences of disenfranchisement emotionally powerful and easy to understand.
The editorial also uses historical reasoning effectively. By recalling the freedom struggle and the Constituent Assembly debates, it reminds readers that universal adult franchise was not merely an administrative decision but a foundational choice of independent India. The expression “equal vote with equal value” reinforces the democratic principle that every citizen’s vote should carry equal importance regardless of identity or social position.
In the second paragraph, the tone becomes sharper and more accusatory. The author argues that the Supreme Court itself cannot remain outside scrutiny. The repeated structure — “even as… even as…” — creates emphasis and builds the argument that the Election Commission allegedly became less inclusive while the Court continued to give it the benefit of doubt.
The phrase “hurdle race at every stage” is a metaphor describing the difficulties faced by voters during the electoral-roll revision process. Finally, “the Court is also on test” is a powerful rhetorical conclusion. It reverses the usual relationship in which courts examine whether institutions are performing properly; here, the author suggests that the judiciary itself must demonstrate that it has adequately protected constitutional democracy.
Overall, the editorial combines constitutional reasoning, historical references, judicial observations, metaphors and strong rhetorical language. Its language gradually moves from institutional concern to constitutional warning and finally to a direct challenge to the Supreme Court.
Important Vocabulary – 5
- Sacrosanct – extremely important and deserving of complete respect; sacred.
- Disenfranchisement – deprivation of a person’s right to vote.
- Modalities – the particular methods or procedures by which something is done.
- Peril – serious danger or risk.
- Disquiet – a feeling of anxiety, concern or uneasiness.
Conclusion & Tone
The editorial argues that the right to vote is at the heart of Indian democracy and must be protected from administrative or institutional practices that could exclude genuine voters. It not only questions the functioning of the Election Commission but also asks the Supreme Court to examine its own response more critically.
