Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the ECI's power to revise electoral rolls. How far do recent course corrections reflect the need for procedural fairness?

Electoral rolls are the gateway to universal adult franchise (Art. 326). The ECI's power to revise them rests on firm legal ground. The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) showed that the harder test is whether the revision process is fair.

Constitutional and Statutory Basis

• Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control of elections, including the preparation of rolls [1].
• RP Act, 1950, Section 21 provides for routine revision. Section 21(3) allows a special revision at any time, for reasons recorded [2].
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set out enumeration, the forms (e.g., Form 6) and the claims process before the ERO [1].
• Stated rationale: migration, unreported deaths and foreign illegal immigrants on the rolls [1]. Phase-II alone covered about 51 crore electors [3].
• Judicial endorsement: in ADR v. ECI (May 2026), the Supreme Court held that the SIR bears a "direct nexus" to free and fair elections. It relied on safeguards of notice, hearing and appeal [4].

Course Corrections: Where They Advance Fairness

• Physical hearings dropped for "unmapped" voters and "logical discrepancy" cases. BLOs now collect documents at home [5][6].
• The extra Form 6 declaration is confined to the current SIR period [5].
• A special enrolment drive has been launched, with left-out citizens able to apply to the ERO [5].
• Full-commission approval after a reported rift among Commissioners signals collegial legitimacy [5].

Where They Fall Short

• After the fact: the SIR is already complete in 20 States/UTs [5]. Excluded voters must reapply, so the burden stays on the citizen.
• Press notes, not rules: procedure changes by executive notice, which is easy to reverse and hard for courts to review.
• Migrants at risk: registration by "ordinary residence" [2] exposes seasonal workers to "shifted/absent" deletion. The drive has no published targets.
• Opacity: no reasons or record of the internal dispute were disclosed.

The ECI's power to revise rolls is therefore well established. The recent corrections are a real but reactive and partial step towards fairness. Writing notice, hearing and appeal into the 1960 Rules, publishing booth-wise deletion lists with reasons, and targeting enrolment in high-migration districts would make roll integrity work alongside inclusion. That would protect Art. 326's promise that every eligible citizen can vote.