Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis for the Election Commission's power to revise electoral rolls. Who should bear the burden of proving eligibility?

The electoral roll is the legal record of who may vote. The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was ordered on 24 June 2025 and began in Bihar [3]. It removed over 47 lakh names in Bihar and nearly 91 lakh in West Bengal [4]. The ECI's power to revise the rolls is well grounded in law. The real dispute is about who must prove eligibility.

Constitutional and statutory basis

• Art. 324: the ECI has superintendence, direction and control over preparing electoral rolls. The Supreme Court traced the SIR to Art. 324 read with Sec. 21(3) [1].
• Arts. 325–326: there is one general roll for each constituency, and suffrage belongs to adult citizens. Together these give the ECI a duty to keep only qualified persons on the roll [1].
• RP Act, 1950: Sec. 15 (a roll for every constituency under ECI control); Sec. 16 (non-citizens are disqualified); Sec. 19 (age 18+ and "ordinarily resident"); Sec. 21(3) (special revision "at any time, for reasons to be recorded") [2].
• Safeguards: Sec. 22 requires a hearing before a name is deleted, and Sec. 24 provides for appeals [2].
• Judicial endorsement: ADR v. ECI (2026 INSC 564) held the SIR proportionate. It allowed only a limited citizenship enquiry that has electoral consequences alone [1].

Who should bear the burden?

• Case for the elector: citizenship is a condition precedent for enrolment, and the rolls carry dead, shifted and duplicate entries [1].
• Case for the State:
• The Court held that being on the roll creates a presumption of validity for the elector. The presumption can be rebutted, but only by evidence [1].
• Shifting the burden to voters hurts the poor, migrants and people without documents. Months later, many deleted electors are still trying to prove they are eligible [4].
• Under Sec. 23(3), no corrections can be made after nominations close, so an appeal still pending at that point means a lost vote [2].

• Aadhaar was accepted only after a court order (8 September 2025) [1].

• Balanced position:

• New applicants should prove their eligibility.
• For existing electors, the State should show specific cause before deleting a name.
• Doubtful-citizenship cases should be referred to the Citizenship Act, 1955 authority and decided before the next election [1].
• The ECI's recent steps already point this way: BLOs now collect documents at people's homes, and help desks have been set up for the homeless and labourers [3].

Article 324 and Section 21(3) clearly allow the ECI to clean the rolls, but how it does so decides whether people accept the result. For existing electors, the burden should stay with the State. Appeals should be time-bound and voters should be able to shift their registration easily. Together these would make the rolls both accurate and fully inclusive, as the universal adult franchise of Article 326 requires.