Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission's power to conduct Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Critically examine the safeguards against wrongful disenfranchisement.

Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls in the Election Commission (ECI), making roll revision a plenary constitutional function. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) — a house-to-house re-verification now in phased nationwide rollout [3] — tests whether this power is matched by adequate safeguards for the individual elector.

Constitutional and statutory basis

• Article 324 grants plenary powers of superintendence over roll preparation; Article 326 mandates adult suffrage, the value SIR must protect.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (not the 1951 Act, which governs conduct of elections) provides the operative machinery: preparation and revision of rolls, inclusion/deletion orders by Electoral Registration Officers, and appeals under Section 24 [1].
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe the forms, fee and appeal procedure [2].

Safeguards that work

• Layered due process: notice, claims and objections, hearing, and speaking orders before deletion [3].
• Appellate machinery: on Supreme Court directions, ECI constituted 19 Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal, headed by former Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and retired High Court judges [4].
• Judicial oversight: the Court compelled publication of the 65 lakh names excluded from Bihar's draft roll with reasons [6], and Aadhaar was admitted as an identity document.

Where they fall short

• Capacity mismatch: of about 38 lakh SIR appeals in West Bengal, over 37 lakh remain pending; 22 lakh contest exclusion [5] — a safeguard delivered after the roll's cut-off is no safeguard for that poll.
• Asymmetric timelines: the citizen faces 15/30-day appeal limits and a non-refundable fee, while no outer limit binds the deciding authority [2].
• Evidentiary burden falls hardest on migrants and the poorly documented.

SIR's legal foundation is secure; its fairness depends on delivery. Publishing booth-wise reasons upfront, fixing a statutory disposal deadline, retaining names until exclusion appeals are decided, and expanding tribunals would align roll purity with Article 326's promise of universal franchise.