Discuss the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission of India in revising electoral rolls. Critically examine the challenges of balancing roll purification with the risk of disenfranchisement, with reference to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

An accurate electoral roll is the foundation of free and fair elections, and Article 324 makes it the Election Commission of India's (ECI) exclusive charge. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) tests whether this cleansing mandate can be exercised without silently excluding genuine voters.

Constitutional and statutory mandate

• Article 324 vests in the ECI the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, insulating the task from executive interference [1].
• Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950 empowers the ECI to order a special revision of any roll at any time, for reasons recorded — the statutory basis of SIR [1]. The Supreme Court examined the ambit of this power in the Bihar SIR litigation [3].
• Implementation flows through the CEO–ERO–BLO machinery: house-to-house enumeration, pre-filled forms, draft publication, and a claims-and-objections window with appeals [2].

The case for purification

• SIR seeks to delete dead, duplicate, permanently shifted and non-citizen entries while adding eligible electors [2].
• Karnataka's last such revision was in 2002; two decades of accretion make periodic deep verification a genuine democratic need [4].

Risks of disenfranchisement

• Scale: Karnataka's draft roll carries 4.46 crore electors against 5.54 crore earlier, with over 1.07 crore placed under the ASDDO (Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, Others) category [4].
• Compressed timelines: claims and objections run only from 24 August to 23 September 2026, ahead of the final roll on 27 October 2026 [4].
• Notice asymmetry: electors tagged "absent/shifted" may not receive the notices sent for "logical discrepancies", risking deletion without knowledge [5].
• Equity: migrants, students, the elderly and the poor struggle to trace a 2002 linkage or file Form 6 in time — hence the plea that "mobility should not translate into disenfranchisement" [5].

Purity of the roll and universality of the franchise are complementary, not competing, goals. Elastic claim windows, mandatory individual notice with reasons, speaking orders before deletion, and portability for migrant electors would let the ECI cleanse the roll while honouring the constitutional promise of adult suffrage under Article 326.