India, July 29 -- The Supreme Court is hearing several petitions against the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar even as the first phase of the exercise was completed last week. SIR targets updating the rolls before the upcoming Assembly elections in the state. After the first phase, ECI revealed that 72.4 million enumeration forms have been collected, which is 6.5 million less than the number of registered voters in the state as on June 24, when SIR began. While ECI has the power to conduct revision of electoral rolls under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act 1950, two striking issues aggrieved the petitioners. First, the revision process required all voters who had been enrolled after 2003 to re-enroll and demonstrate their eligibility, and second, they were allowed only one month to do so. Despite serious claims of mass disenfranchisement due to the opaque procedure, the swift manner of enumeration, and a short time limit to re-enroll, the Court refused to stay the exercise. It merely asked ECI to "consider" three other documents, namely the Aadhaar card, the ration card, and the voter ID card, to tackle the possibility of disenfranchisement. Several judgments have highlighted the importance of the right to vote and how it goes to the heart of democracy in India. However, the right to vote continues to remain a statutory right. Its existence is tied to a specific legislation - alarmingly, one that can be interfered with or subjected to conditions. Section 62 of Representation of the People Act 1951 states that the right to vote is to be provided only to those people whose names are present in the electoral rolls of a constituency. Thus, the process of preparation and revision of electoral rolls is an important step in identifying eligible voters. In Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sitaram Mahto (1969), the Supreme Court disallowed any revisions to the rolls in Bihar since the deadline had expired. The 1960 Rules prevent any amendment, transposition, inclusion, or deletion of voters after the last date. Such precedents and rules do not inspire the expectation of an outcome in favour of the petitioners in the current case, given the apex court's refusal to stay the exercise, though there is still some time to the deadline. Also, there are risks of a potential dismissal of the SIR case for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court has limited grounds to review such cases, and second, the Supreme Court is always sceptical about delaying elections in such cases. The 1950 Act provides for an internal review mechanism for complaints or grievances - any person can file objections to the electoral officers, raise complaints, and ask for further directions from ECI. There exists a repeated emphasis on following this process before approaching the courts. In Uttar Pradesh, in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP (1996), the Supreme Court refused to intervene in irregularities regarding the preparation and correction of electoral rolls and deferred to the internal process. In the same vein, it is highly probable that the Court, while evaluating the legality of Bihar's revision process, may simply redirect the complainants to these statutory processes. The nature and efficiency of this mechanism have never been questioned. Whether ECI can be independent in assessing complaints made against its officers remains to be seen. That apart, the process may not be transparent or citizen-centric. Past cases have highlighted deep-rooted issues with these internal redressal mechanisms. Several people have complained that their objections went unheard due to the officers being unwelcoming of their concerns. Further, this process has been quite exclusionary to certain groups of vulnerable citizens, such as slum dwellers. Such processes severely affect those at the margins. Would the uneducated be able to understand the voter disqualification notices? Would the daily-wage worker be able to forego one day's worth of work to appear before the electoral officer? In Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995), poor, uneducated residents of Paharganj had questioned the inaccessibility of such redressal processes and highlighted the unfair and unreasonable procedures they had to go through. In the end, only the Court was able to uphold their rights through due process. Thus, it is strongly in the interests of justice that the Supreme Court substantively adjudicates in the current Bihar SIR case. This could ensure any instance of possible disenfranchisement in Bihar does not go unsupervised, unchecked, or uncontrolled. The second reason that the courts hesitate to intervene is the fear of delaying the elections. In Lakshmi Chandra Sen v. AKM Hassan (1985), the Supreme Court was apprehensive about ordering a revision of electoral rolls. It was worried about unwarranted judicial control over elections or worse, an indefinite postponement. The unsaid principle goes: The more imminent the election, the greater the reluctance to judicially interfere. The only exception made is if there exist irregularities in the process, which have the potential to vitiate the entire election. Then, a special tribunal may be set up to address the same. Hence, in the Bihar case, first, there exists the possibility of the Supreme Court summarily refusing to intervene, citing interference with the assembly elections. Second, even if the Court thought that the revision of rolls was irregular, there exists the possibility of it neither injuncting the election process nor preventing disenfranchisement. In most matters, the Supreme Court has always assumed the role of the sentinel on the qui vive (on the alert) for any harm - however small - to Indian democracy. It is even more important that the Court should take up this mantle and protect the literal basis of democracy - the people's right to vote - now....