On 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. I should say plainly at the outset that the purpose of this essay is not to analyse that result. Whether the Court was correct to uphold the SIR is a question I intend to set aside for present purposes. A longer piece may look into it. In this post, I wish instead to focus on an instinct that runs through substantial parts of the judgment. As I shall argue, the judgement displays a sustained understanding of the Election Commission of India as something very close to what comparative constitutional scholars have come to describe as a fourth-branch institution i.e. an entity that occupies a fourth, extra-trias branch of the state, beyond the orthodox tripartite division of legislative, executive, and judicial power.
What are Guarantor (or Fourth-Branch) Institutions?
In his work on what he terms "guarantor institutions", Tarunabh Khaitan identifies a class of constitutional bodies that do not fit comfortably within the traditional Montesquieuian separation of legislature, executive, and judiciary. These are bodies (electoral commissions, central banks, anti-corruption agencies, public broadcasters, ombudsmen) whose function is to police the conditions under which the three branches themselves operate, and to do so with a degree of independence that conventional executive agencies cannot achieve. They are, as Khaitan argues, structurally insulated from the very governments whose conduct they are meant to constrain.
India is, of course, formally a tripartite constitutional system. The Constitution establishes Parliament, the executive, and an independent judiciary, and the relationship among these three is the subject of a jurisprudence that runs from Kesavananda Bharati to the present. What India does not have is (formally and explicitly, as a matter of acknowledged constitutional theory) a fourth branch. There is no domestic equivalent of South Africa's Chapter 9 institutions - i.e. to say - no textual recognition of a category of bodies whose independence from the government of the day is itself a constitutive value.
However, the bodies that might plausibly be described in those terms - the ECI, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Central Vigilance Commission - are treated, in mainstream constitutional discourse, as either executive appendages or sui generis anomalies. Dr. Khaitan's framework, in this context, offers a way of understanding these institutions more systematically. The value of such a framework is perhaps particularly apparent in India, where constitutional practice has often displayed a curious discomfort with genuinely independent institutions.
Reading Paragraphs 16–26
On the first issue - whether the ECI had the power to conduct the SIR - the bench comprising Kant C.J. and Bagchi J. assembled, across paragraphs 16 to 26, what amounts to a small treatise on the constitutional character of the Commission. The passage that arrested my attention most is drawn from the Court's reliance on Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India:
"Once Article 324 vests the constitutional function in the Commission, it does not become a subordinate delegate merely because Parliament has legislated in the same area. It continues to act in its own right as the constitutional repository of electoral superintendence."
Now the phrase "constitutional repository" is not, at first glance, especially arresting. But read in context, what the Court is saying is that the ECI’s authority flows sideways, or perhaps upward, from the Constitution itself. And while the Parliament can legislate in the electoral field; that legislation operates beside the Commission's authority, not above it. The Commission, the Court insists, retains the capacity to act "in its own right". This is, if one squints at it from the right angle, a distinctly fourth-branch description. A body that (A) derives its authority directly from the Constitution, that is (B) not subordinate to Parliament despite parliamentary legislation in the same domain, and (C) that exercises what the Court elsewhere describes as "essentially administrative and marginally even judicative or legislative" functions.
Such a body is quite obviously not the executive, because it is explicitly insulated from executive control. It is not the legislature, because it does not make law in the primary sense. Nor is it the judiciary, because its functions are predominantly managerial. It is a body whose constitutional role is to preserve the integrity of the mechanisms by which the other three branches acquire their democratic legitimacy in the first place.
The Bidirectional Restraint (on Para 26 and a “constitutional equilibrium)
Paragraph 26 of the judgement articulates what the Court calls a "delicate constitutional equilibrium", and it is worth reflecting over. The Court states:
"While this plenary nature does not place the Commission above statutory law, the constitutional restraint operates in both directions. The Commission cannot act in defiance of an express statutory prohibition. Conversely, parliamentary legislation cannot be deployed to extinguish the Commission's overriding constitutional mandate."
Bidirectionality is the key here. The Court is saying that there is a floor of constitutional authority below which parliamentary legislation cannot push the Commission. This has to be the language of entrenchment of a body whose core functions are placed beyond the reach of the parliamentary majority of the day. Guarantor institutions are supposed to work exactly like this. Their value depends precisely on their not being susceptible to capture by whichever party controls the legislature. For an electoral commission that Parliament can hollow out by statute offers no electoral credibility. The Court understands this, and it says so - in the language of (A1) complementary rather than competing mandates, of (B1) a "supervisory authority" that is, in its own words, "inherently expansive" and (C1) functions as "a continuous wellspring of power" encompassing "every facet and stage of the electoral machinery".
Paragraphs 79–82
The legitimate purpose and proportionality analysis of the judgement yields what is, for the present argument, the most significant passage. When the Court reaches the third limb of proportionality (i.e. necessity, because apparently lawyers sometimes name things that are simple to understand), it confronts the question of how deferential a constitutional court should be to a body like the ECI. The answer the Court gives, drawing on the Constitution Bench's analysis in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, is extremely revealing:
"The determination of what constitutes an appropriate or effective measure to address complex and systemic concerns is a matter that lies primarily within the domain of specialised bodies possessing the requisite expertise… questions as to whether alternative measures could have been adopted, or whether a different course of action would have been more efficacious, fall outside the institutional competence of the judiciary, unless the measure adopted is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable."
To be sure, the Court pauses briefly to acknowledge that demonetisation and electoral-roll revision are not quite the same thing. But the qualification is thin, and the Court then applies the same logic holding that the ECI "endowed with institutional expertise and vested with constitutional authority, is uniquely suited to undertake" decisions about the revision of rolls. The institutional deference is again the deference one accords to a body that, by design, has been placed beyond the ordinary channels of political accountability precisely so that its technical and electoral judgements will not be infected by partisan considerations.
And yet. Here is where the eternal sunshine of a spotless judgement (the Gondry film in which the erasure of memory does not, in the end, produce happiness) becomes apposite. The comparison may still seem a curious one at present, but I ask readers to indulge it for a little longer. With luck (and assuming both the readers of this blog and its author keep their fingers crossed long enough) it should make rather more sense shortly.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Judgement – What the Court Did Not Say, and Why That Matters: Some Reflections (A Bit Broader, Perhaps / To Conclude)
The Court's fourth-branch instinct is on its own terms admirable. But an instinct without self-awareness is a dangerous thing, for it produces the latitude without the accountability. A guarantor institution is only worth its entrenchment if it is actually discharging the guarantor function i.e. protecting the conditions of democratic competition from abuse by incumbents. The Bihar SIR, whatever its formal legality, was an exercise conducted in the run-up to state elections, with a timeline and a documentation regime that disproportionately burdened the rural poor. Whether the Commission was, in this instance, functioning as the independent constitutional guardian the Court imagines, or whether it was functioning as a facilitator of the incumbent's electoral interests, is a question the Court declines to examine with any rigour. It extends deference appropriate to a guarantor institution to a body that may not, in this case, have been behaving like one.
When a guarantor institution stops guaranteeing, the constitutional entrenchment that was designed to protect its independence instead protects its complicity. The Court gives to the ECI the benefit of an institutional theory that the ECI's conduct in this case did not obviously deserve. The latitude extended is genuine and, in principle, correct. Whether it was correctly applied here, however, is a resounding no.
I quite obviously can have no quarrel with the Court's vision. The judgement's underlying understanding of the ECI is, to my mind, the most sophisticated account of the Commission's constitutional status. If that understanding were consistently applied, and if it were accompanied by a willingness to scrutinise whether the ECI is in fact discharging its guarantor function in particular cases, the judgement would have been a significant contribution to Indian constitutional law and theory. As it stands, it is only half of one.
No comments:
Post a Comment