When Justice Surya Kant assumes charge as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on November 24, he will inherit not just the nation’s highest judicial chair but also one of its most delicate constitutional tests — how far the judiciary should wade into the functioning of other independent institutions. The challenge comes at a time when the Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, mandated under electoral reforms introduced by the present government. The outgoing Chief Justice, Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, has already settled, through a recent bench verdict, that the Election Commission’s decision to proceed with SIR is well within its powers. Yet, several Opposition parties are preparing to move the Supreme Court again, challenging the very process. Should the new CJI even entertain such petitions against a constitutionally empowered body like the ECI? That question will be his first true test. Renowned jurist Harish Salve, in a recent interview, minced no words while calling out the judiciary’s tendency to intervene in matters best left to other constitutional authorities. “The Supreme Court must learn to respect the autonomy of the Election Commission, Parliament, and the President’s office,” he said, adding that the court’s credibility is at stake if it continues to be seen as a refuge for politically motivated litigants. Salve’s warning carries weight. Over the years, judicial overreach—whether real or perceived—has begun eroding public confidence. In a democracy of 140 crore people, the judiciary’s moral authority rests not on constant visibility or media-driven activism, but on restraint, balance, and respect for institutional boundaries laid down by the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution clearly demarcated the powers of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The Election Commission, though not one of these three pillars, plays an equally critical role in safeguarding the democratic framework. Its core mandate—ensuring free and fair elections—remains non-negotiable. Yet, it finds itself repeatedly vilified by political parties unwilling to introspect after electoral defeats.
The opposition’s newfound outrage over the SIR exercise is both misplaced and hypocritical. The SIR, conducted roughly before every election, aims to weed out dead, duplicate, and illegal voters from the electoral rolls. This is not a political operation—it is a constitutional necessity. Ironically, such a survey was conducted last in 2004, the reasons best known to people in power. To paint it as a sinister plot to manipulate elections is an insult not only to the Election Commission but also to India’s democratic conscience. Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), repeatedly tested and certified as tamper-proof, have already withstood every conceivable scrutiny. Yet, parties that once celebrated victories under the same system now cry “vote chori” when rejected by voters. What explains this convenient indignation? Simply this—the same Opposition forces that once benefited from appeasement politics now fear losing their manufactured “vote banks” as illegal or ineligible names are deleted from the rolls. Regional heavyweights like the DMK and TMC joining the Congress-led “vote theft” chorus only expose their nervousness. Both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal face elections next year—states where the ECI’s cleansing drive could strip inflated voter lists swollen with migrants, duplicate entries, and even non-nationals who have conveniently obtained ration cards, Aadhaar numbers, and voter IDs. Undeterred by political noise, the ECI under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has rolled out the second phase of SIR across 12 states, including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, besides others, covering nearly 51 crore voters, after completing the Bihar exercise ahead of its November 4 polls. The Commission has assured multiple verification layers to ensure no legitimate voter is excluded while cleaning the rolls of dead or fake entries. Justice Surya Kant will have to decide whether the judiciary continues entertaining every political grievance disguised as “public interest” or draws a firm line to protect institutional integrity. Upholding the ECI’s independence is not about favouring any government—it is about defending the very architecture of democracy. As Harish Salve rightly said, the Supreme Court’s greatest service today would be to “restore public faith” by showing constitutional restraint. The new CJI’s tenure, therefore, begins not with a gavel—but with a question: will the judiciary strengthen democracy by trusting its peers, or weaken it by second-guessing them?
