Pratap Bhanu Mehta Examines Concerns Over Election Commission and Judicial Independence

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has raised fresh concerns about the credibility of India’s constitutional institutions, arguing that recent actions by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court have made it more difficult for citizens to maintain confidence in institutions that are expected to operate independently. Writing in The Indian Express, Mehta focused particularly on the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the way the Election Commission and Supreme Court have dealt with questions surrounding the exercise.

At the centre of Mehta’s argument is the question of how electoral institutions should balance their responsibility to maintain accurate voter lists with the need to protect citizens’ voting rights. He argues that while an exercise to verify electoral rolls can have a legitimate purpose, the way the SIR process has been handled has created concerns about transparency, documentation and the burden placed on voters.

Mehta points to questions raised about the procedures used during the revision process, including concerns over how voters were expected to establish their eligibility. He also refers to reporting on the Election Commission’s handling of appeals involving voters in West Bengal. According to his analysis, these developments have contributed to wider concerns about whether citizens have sufficient safeguards when their names or eligibility to vote are challenged.

The role of the Supreme Court is another major part of his argument. Mehta contends that the Court had an important opportunity to insist on stronger safeguards while allowing the Election Commission to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. Instead, he believes some judicial observations and decisions have left critics questioning whether adequate importance has been given to the practical consequences for voters.

The broader issue, in Mehta’s view, goes beyond the immediate dispute over electoral rolls. He argues that independent institutions depend not only on constitutional powers and formal procedures but also on public confidence in how those powers are exercised. If citizens begin to believe that institutions responsible for protecting their rights are inaccessible or insufficiently accountable, rebuilding that trust can become considerably harder.

Mehta also connects the controversy to the larger debate over the independence of constitutional bodies in India. The Election Commission has a central role in maintaining electoral rolls and conducting elections, while the judiciary is expected to provide constitutional oversight. Both institutions therefore operate in areas where public confidence is particularly important.

His argument also raises a question about institutional design. Mehta notes that changing appointment procedures or creating additional formal safeguards does not automatically guarantee that an institution will function independently. In an earlier 2022 article, he similarly argued that institutional performance cannot be determined solely by appointment mechanisms and that accountability structures are equally important.

The current debate comes at a time when the Election Commission's handling of electoral-roll revisions has attracted competing political and legal arguments. Supporters of the revision process have emphasised the importance of maintaining accurate voter lists, while critics have raised concerns about the possibility of eligible voters being excluded. These competing considerations make transparency, accessible procedures and effective avenues for correction particularly significant.

Mehta's latest commentary therefore frames the issue as one of institutional trust rather than simply a dispute between political parties and constitutional authorities. His central concern is that when citizens lose confidence in bodies designed to operate independently, the damage can extend beyond a single election or administrative exercise.

The discussion also highlights the importance of making institutional decisions understandable to ordinary voters. Clear explanations, transparent procedures and accessible mechanisms for correcting errors can help citizens understand how decisions affecting their electoral rights are made. Whether the ongoing legal and administrative processes address the concerns raised will remain an important part of the wider debate over electoral institutions in India.

For Mehta, restoring confidence requires more than changing rules on paper. It requires constitutional institutions to demonstrate through their conduct that citizens' rights, accountability and procedural fairness remain central to the way those institutions exercise their authority.