"Accuracy and inclusiveness of electoral rolls are equally vital to free and fair elections." Discuss in the context of recent Special Intensive Revisions.

The Supreme Court has called the electoral roll "the legal record of the political community" [1]. An accurate roll that leaves out genuine voters fails as badly as an inclusive one that is padded with false entries. The Special Intensive Revisions (SIRs) held since 2025 have tested both standards at once.

Why accuracy matters

• Purity of the roll: In Bihar, enumeration flagged about 22 lakh dead, 7 lakh multiple and 36 lakh shifted or not-found entries [1]. Entries like these allow impersonation.
• Constitutional backing: The SC upheld the SIR under Sec. 21(3), RPA 1950 read with Art. 324. It held the exercise proportionate to restoring the "accuracy, completeness, and integrity" of rolls [1][2].

Why inclusiveness matters equally

• Universal adult suffrage (Art. 326): An election cannot be fully free and fair if genuine voters have been wrongly struck off.
• Scale of exclusion: About 65 lakh names were dropped from Bihar's draft roll [1]. In Delhi, 47,56,722 electors were left off under the ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate) category [3].
• Burden on the citizen: Deleted Delhi voters can return only through Form 6, which requires a "first-time" applicant declaration. For someone already enrolled, that declaration is false and risks prosecution under Sec. 31, RPA 1950 [2][3].
• Vulnerable groups: "Absent" and "Shifted" tags are most likely to affect migrants and tenants.

Balancing the two: lessons from the SIRs

Enumeration → Draft roll (exclusions) → Names published with reasons
→ Claims/objections → Notice & hearing → Appeal (DM → CEO) → Final roll

Flowchart: safeguards within an SIR

• Transparency: On 14.08.2025 the SC ordered the ECI to publish the excluded names with reasons. It also allowed claims backed by Aadhaar [1].
• Due process: Doubtful cases get a show-cause notice and a reasoned order, with a two-tier appeal under Sec. 24 [1]. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must make repeated visits before marking an elector untraceable [4].
• Self-correction: Bihar added 21.53 lakh eligible electors after the draft stage [1].

Way forward

• A separate restoration route based on the old voter ID (EPIC) number, instead of a first-time Form 6.
• ASDD data broken down by tag. Dead and Duplicate entries should be checked against death registers and de-duplication software. Absent and Shifted electors should be removed only after notice and a hearing.
• Any new declaration should come through an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, not through executive forms [3].

Accuracy and inclusiveness support each other: a clean roll earns trust only if no genuine voter is left out. Restoration routes that are transparent, tailored to each tag and free of legal risk can achieve both. This would serve Article 326's promise and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive, representative decision-making.