There is a peculiar burden that a court acquires when it narrows its own precedents. It must then keep returning to clean up the consequences of that decision. The Supreme Court (SC) may now have such a problem with the Election Commission’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

There is an uncanny symmetry to what is unfolding. In 1995, under Chief Justice AM Ahmadi, the Supreme Court answered two questions that have now returned. Can the State dislodge an existing voter, and can the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) unilaterally exercise the ECI’s powers? The Court answered with firm guardrails. In Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO, dealing with mass deletions from electoral rolls, the Court held that once a voter’s name appeared on the rolls, there is a presumption of validity. Its removal would have to be justified by the State with notice and hearing. In TN Seshan v. Union of India, it rejected the idea that the CEC stood above the other Election Commissioners, warning that they could not be reduced to “non-functional or ornamental” positions.

Thirty-one years later, one of those guardrails has already loosened. In answering the challenge........

© hindustantimes