The frequent judicial interventions by the Supreme Court of India

 ### Summary

This Article presents a detailed critique of the frequent judicial interventions by the Supreme Court of India in administrative and governmental actions, using the example of Bihar's voter list revision process initiated by the Election Commission. Arguement is that whenever a positive or reformative step is taken by any government department, especially by the Election Commission, it often faces immediate legal challenges, mainly from opposition political parties and activist lawyers who invoke fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution to stall or stop such initiatives. 

In Bihar, a special intensive revision of the voter list was launched ahead of the November elections to verify the authenticity and eligibility of voters, aiming to remove duplicate or fraudulent entries, including those belonging to illegal migrants. This process, however, was met with fierce opposition, including from some political parties and NGOs like the Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), who filed petitions in the Supreme Court to halt the exercise. The opposition raised concerns about alleged violations of fundamental rights and the use of documents like caste certificates or family registers for verification, which are being practical and accessible for most voters.

It is highlighted the larger problem of multiple voter IDs held by individuals in different states leading to electoral malpractice. Despite voluntary linking of voter IDs with Aadhaar to curb such fraud, many have not complied, and enforcement remains weak. A notable example mentioned is former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who reportedly held three voter IDs simultaneously without facing any penal consequences.

Let us discusses the Supreme Court’s shifting role over the years. Earlier, during the Congress-led UPA government, the judiciary played a more restrained role, but under the current Modi government, it has increasingly adopted an oppositional stance, often perceived as obstructing government initiatives. It is seen certain lawyers and judges of colluding to undermine government policies by repeatedly invoking constitutional provisions to stall governance.

Further,here  highlighted the judiciary's failure to address the huge backlog of criminal and civil cases in courts, questioning whether justice is truly being delivered. The judiciary's focus on high-profile cases and the protection of political interests is contrasted with neglect of ordinary citizens’ cases.

That is why I call for the Election Commission’s ongoing voter list verification in Bihar to continue without judicial interference, emphasizing that the process is lawful, necessary, and beneficial for the integrity of elections.The continual Supreme Court interventions in day-to-day government functioning risk politicizing the judiciary and eroding democratic governance. 

I ask readers for their opinion on whether the Supreme Court should intervene in such administrative matters or allow government agencies to function unhindered.

### Highlights

- 📋 Bihar’s voter list intensive revision aims to remove duplicate and illegal voter entries before November elections.

- ⚖️ Opposition parties and NGOs have challenged the revision in the Supreme Court citing fundamental rights violations.

- 🗳️ Multiple voter IDs per person remain a major electoral fraud issue across India.

- 🏛️ Supreme Court increasingly seen as obstructing government reforms under the current political regime.

- 🔍 Verification documents like caste certificates and family registers are practical and widely accessible for voter verification in Bihar.

- ⏳ Huge backlog of pending criminal and civil cases highlights judiciary’s failure to deliver timely justice.

- 🔥 Judicial activism risks politicizing the Supreme Court and undermining democratic governance.

### Key Insights

- ⚖️ **Judicial Overreach and Governance:** The Supreme Court’s frequent intervention in government initiatives, especially those related to electoral reforms, often leads to delays and frustration in implementing necessary measures. While judicial review is crucial for protecting citizens’ rights, excessive interference in administrative functions can paralyze governance. The Bihar voter list revision case exemplifies this tension, where the court’s involvement is perceived as siding with political interests rather than upholding justice impartially.

- 🗳️ **Electoral Integrity at Stake:** The presence of multiple voter IDs held by individuals in different states undermines the credibility of elections. Despite efforts like Aadhaar linking, enforcement remains weak due to legal loopholes and lack of stringent action. Bihar’s revision process is critical in cleansing the rolls to prevent electoral manipulation by illegal voters, including potential migrants from neighboring countries, which is a sensitive and politically charged issue.

- 📜 **Practicality of Verification Documents:** The documents required for voter verification—passport, caste certificate, birth certificate, or family register—are not arbitrary burdens but practical and accessible means for most voters. This counters the opposition’s narrative that the process is exclusionary or oppressive, emphasizing that grassroots-level officials like village secretaries and booth-level officers facilitate the process.

- ⚔️ **Politicization of the Judiciary:** There is concerns about how the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has evolved into a platform where certain lawyers and judges act in a manner perceived as favoring opposition interests. This politicization risks undermining public trust in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter and raises questions about the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint.

- 🕰️ **Judicial Inefficiency and Backlog:** Despite the Supreme Court’s high-profile activism, the justice delivery system suffers from massive pendency of cases, including criminal cases that directly affect public safety and individual freedoms. This contrast highlights a gap between judicial energy directed at politically sensitive cases versus the systemic neglect of everyday justice needs.

- 🔄 **Historical Comparison of Judicial Behavior:** The  Supreme Court’s approach during the UPA era with the current regime, suggesting that the judiciary was less confrontational before but has since adopted a more adversarial role. This historical perspective invites reflection on the dynamic nature of judicial behavior and the influence of political contexts on judicial independence.

Need to Protect Institutional Autonomy:** The importance of allowing constitutional bodies like the Election Commission, Police, CBI, and ED to perform their functions without undue judicial interference, as long as they operate within legal frameworks. Overreach by courts can demobilize these institutions, which are essential for governance and law enforcement, ultimately harming the democratic process.

The complex interplay between judiciary, politics, and governance in India, focusing on the contentious issue of voter list verification in Bihar underscores the challenges of balancing constitutional rights with the need for administrative efficiency and electoral integrity. A careful reevaluation of how and when courts should intervene in government affairs, warning against the dangers of judicial overreach that could stifle reforms and weaken democratic institutions. I invite readers to reflect on the role of the Supreme Court—whether as a neutral guardian of justice or a political actor—and the implications this has for India’s democracy.

Jai Hind Jai Bharat