"Accuracy of electoral rolls and inclusiveness of the franchise need not be in conflict." Critically examine this with reference to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise, while Section 16 of the RP Act, 1950 bars non-citizens from the roll [1]. Free elections need a roll that is both accurate and inclusive. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows that the two can work together in principle. In practice, the way SIR was designed set them against each other.

Why accuracy and inclusion complement each other

• Clean rolls protect genuine votes: dead, shifted and duplicate entries make it possible for someone to vote in another person's name. Bihar's rolls had not had an intensive revision since 2003 [1].
• Supreme Court approval: in ADR v. ECI (2026), the Court held that SIR rests on Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324. It also found SIR proportionate, with notice-and-hearing safeguards [1].
• Built-in inclusion tools: names left off the draft rolls are published with reasons (absent, shifted, dead, duplicate). Electoral Registration Officers must issue notices before deciding final inclusion or exclusion [2].

Where SIR set them in conflict

• Scale of exclusion: Bihar's draft roll dropped about 65 lakh names. The final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, against 7.89 crore before SIR, a net fall of about 47 lakh [3].
• Burden moved to the voter: electors had to produce documents from a set list. Aadhaar, the ID most people hold, was added only by a Court order of 8 September 2025 [1]. The poor, migrants and the less literate find this hardest to comply with.
• Roll check turning into a citizenship test: the Court had to direct that citizenship-based deletions be referred within four weeks to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, with notice and a hearing [1].
• Remedy only after harm: a wrongly deleted voter is restored only if they notice the deletion and file a claim in time [2].

Reconciling the two

• Accept Aadhaar as identity proof from the enumeration stage itself.
• Respect the presumption of validity the Court recognised for existing electors [1], and delete a name only after individual notice.
• Publish draft-versus-final figures, with reasons, for every phase [2][3].
• Combine verification with SVEEP-style outreach (the ECI's voter-awareness programme) to migrants and the poor.

The statement holds in principle: clean and complete rolls both serve Article 324's goal of free and fair elections [1]. SIR shows that the conflict comes from the method, not the purpose. If the State carries the burden of proof and inclusion is built in from day one, the ECI can keep both promises: no bogus voter, and no voter left behind.