"Accuracy of electoral rolls must not come at the cost of inclusiveness." Discuss with reference to the Special Intensive Revision exercises.

Article 326 guarantees every adult citizen the right to vote, and a voter can use that right only if their name is on the electoral roll. The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began in Bihar and was later extended to West Bengal and other States [1]. West Bengal now has 38.31 lakh appeals before only 19 tribunals [2]. This shows that when accuracy is pursued without safeguards, genuine voters can lose their vote.

Why accuracy matters

• Electoral integrity: dead, shifted and duplicate entries make impersonation possible. The SIR targets exactly these categories [1].
• Statutory mandate: RPA 1950 bars non-citizens from registration (S.16) and allows a special revision at any time (S.21(3)) [3].
• Public trust: in West Bengal, 16.10 lakh objections were filed against names on the roll, which shows that inflated rolls erode confidence [2].

How SIR exercises strain inclusiveness

• Opaque grounds: many deletions cite vague "logical discrepancies". These are data mismatches, not proven ineligibility [2].
• Burden reversed: Lal Babu Hussein (1995) requires notice and a hearing before a name is deleted [4]. Mass deletions push the burden of proof onto the voter.
• Vulnerable groups: migrants, women whose names changed after marriage, and the poor who lack documents are the most exposed.
• Remedy delayed: only about 3% of appeals have been decided, and petitioners estimate the backlog could take 12+ years to clear [2]. A vote lost in the November 2026 municipal polls cannot be given back later.
• Capacity gap: after the NRC, Assam promised adequate tribunals, legal aid and a 120-day appeal window [5]. West Bengal has no such scale-up.

Reconciling the two

• The two errors are not equal: the Supreme Court has orally suggested hearing restoration appeals first [2]. A wrongly included name can be challenged at the booth, but a wrongful deletion is final.
• Reasoned deletions: every deleted voter should get a specific written reason, and EROs should re-check data mismatches in bulk.
• Time-bound appeals: add more benches, set disposal targets and decide appeals with common grounds in batches. Voters with pending appeals could be allowed to vote provisionally.

Accuracy and inclusiveness support each other: a roll is accurate only when it contains every eligible citizen. Three steps would let SIR clean the rolls without shrinking the electorate: presume that existing entries are valid, give reasons for every deletion, and decide appeals within fixed time limits. This would also meet the ECI's own aim that no eligible elector is left out [1] and keep Article 326's promise of universal adult franchise.