Critically analyse the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as a tool for electoral integrity, with reference to concerns about exclusion.

A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) prepares electoral rolls afresh through house-to-house verification, while a summary revision only updates them. The Supreme Court upheld the Bihar pilot in May 2026, linking it to Section 21(3), RP Act, 1950, read with Article 324 [1]. SIR is a legitimate tool for integrity, but its design decides whether it cleans the rolls or shrinks the franchise.

SIR as an integrity tool

• Constitutional footing: The Court found SIR proportionate: it serves a legitimate goal, is not excessive and has safeguards [1].
• Purging ineligible entries: Section 16 of the RP Act bars non-citizens. Bihar removed 3.66 lakh ineligible names [2].
• Verifiable baseline: The 2003 roll was placed online so that electors could check their entries [3]. EPIC was rejected as self-proof because it would make the exercise "nugatory" [1].
• Inclusion as well: 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added through Form 6 [2].

Concerns about exclusion

• Documentary burden: Migrants, women who moved after marriage and the urban poor have the weakest paperwork. Aadhaar was admitted as the 12th document [4], but it proves identity only, not citizenship (Section 23(4)) [1].
• First-time voters: Since July, Form 6 demands ancestry details or a link to earlier SIR rolls on ECINet [5]. Someone turning 18 in 2026 cannot appear on the 2003 base roll [3], so they depend on family records.
• Burden of proof: Lal Babu Hussein (1995) lets EROs seek citizenship evidence from people applying for inclusion [6]. However, the ECI's enquiry is "limited", and refusing enrolment is not a finding on citizenship [1].
• Scale and transparency: SIR now runs in multiple States. The SC "neither approved nor disapproved" the new Form 6 and will examine it [5].

Balancing the two

• The Court upheld the document list only because documents were "not the sole determinant" and sat within a process of enquiry and adjudication [1].
• Doubtful cases must go to the Citizenship Act, 1955 authority, which must decide before the next election [1].

SIR improves the accuracy of the rolls, but it is legitimate only when it also includes every eligible voter. The ancestry link should be one option among several, not a mandatory gate. Every refusal should come with notice, a hearing and a written reason. Publishing Form 6 rejections State by State would make exclusion visible. Accurate rolls with fair procedure would honour both Article 326's universal adult franchise and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive decision-making.