·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 words

Discuss the administrative challenges in balancing electoral roll purification with protection of voting rights, in light of the recent Special Intensive Revision exercise.

In this answer
  1. The purification imperative is real
  2. Where the administrative strain shows

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), conducted under the Election Commission's superintendence over electoral rolls (Article 324) and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, seeks a twin outcome — "no eligible citizen left out, no ineligible person included" [1]. Phase 3's draft rolls show why this balance is administratively fragile.

The purification imperative is real

  • Rolls accumulate error between intensive revisions: Phase 2 alone removed about 66.88 lakh deceased electors, besides duplicates and shifted voters [1].
  • Deletion is not arbitrary — reasons must be recorded in the prescribed enumeration format under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, followed by a draft roll, claims and objections, and appeal to the district level [1][2].

Where the administrative strain shows

  • Scale versus time: Phase 3 pushed 19 States/UTs through one compressed window; ECI itself revised the schedule for 6 States/UT [1]. Fewer reachable electors means more "untraceable" entries.
  • A weak absence test: an elector is treated as untraceable after a minimum of two–three BLO visits [1][2]. For circular migrants, construction workers and students, absence is normal, not ineligibility.
  • Aggregated reporting: deceased, duplicate and absentee deletions are published as one figure, so the genuinely contestable share cannot be diagnosed [3].
  • Reactive safeguards: claims and objections are opt-in. A voter absent during enumeration is likely absent during the objection window too, so the drop from 12.3% to 10.5% deletions across Phases 1–2 measures who contested, not who was wrongly deleted [3].
  • Asymmetric cost of error: a retained ineligible name still needs impersonation to become a vote; a wrongly deleted name is certain disenfranchisement for that cycle.

Purification and franchise protection are complementary, not competing, once verification becomes auditable. Publishing reason-wise and restoration data at draft stage, extending the Special Roll Observer mechanism to all phases [4], activating Booth Level Agents at enumeration itself, and retaining "absent-only" entries pending inquiry would let ECI cleanse rolls while honouring universal adult franchise under Article 326 [5].

Sources

  1. 1ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters, PIBtwin objective, BLO two–three visit rule, recorded reasons, draft roll and appeal safeguards, Phase 2 deceased deletions, Phase 3 coverage and schedule revision
  2. 2The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, India Codeenumeration format, recorded reasons for deletion, claims and objections procedure
  3. 3SIR: deletions have increased in Phase 3 States/UTs, The Hindu (16 September 2026)Phase 3 draft-roll deletion rate, aggregated reporting, and the 12.3% to 10.5% movement in Phases 1–2
  4. 4ECI deploys Special Roll Observers for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in major States, PIBindependent supervisory layer over the SIR process
  5. 5ECI to begin Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar, PIBconstitutional and statutory basis of SIR under Article 324, Article 326 and the RP Act, 1950

More from this note