Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission's power to revise electoral rolls. Examine the concerns raised by the Special Intensive Revision process in West Bengal.

A clean electoral roll is the foundation of free and fair elections. Invoking Article 324, the ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) on 27 October 2025, covering nearly 51 crore electors in 9 States and 3 UTs in Phase-II [1] — an exercise that is constitutionally sound, but whose West Bengal rollout has exposed serious procedural gaps.

Constitutional basis

• Article 324 vests in the ECI the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls; the SIR order of 27 October 2025 was issued expressly under this power [1].
• Article 326 mandates adult suffrage, and Article 325 bars exclusion from any roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex — the outer limits on any deletion drive.

Statutory basis

• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs roll preparation; Section 21 empowers the ECI to direct a special or intensive revision at any time, for reasons recorded.
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 supply the machinery — house-to-house enumeration, draft publication, and Forms 6, 7 and 8 for claims and objections, with appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer [3].

Concerns raised in West Bengal

• Reversed burden of proof: an existing elector must produce documents to remain enrolled; failure to respond in time invites deletion, hitting migrants, the poor and less literate hardest.
• Opaque criteria: electors flagged for "logical discrepancies" cannot know the precise defect, weakening the ECI's own promise of complete transparency in additions and deletions [3].
• Remedy lagging the poll calendar: the 19 Appellate Tribunals headed by former High Court judges were constituted only in compliance with the Supreme Court's order of 10 March 2026 [4] — and appeals decided after polling day offer no real relief.
• Sequencing: Bihar corrected errors within the claims-and-objections window before the final roll [5]; Bengal pushed correction into a post-deletion appeal queue.

The ECI's safeguards — three BLO visits, Booth Level Agents of all parties, and a draft-roll objection window [1][2] — are sound in design; the deficit is in execution. Publishing flagging criteria, widening acceptable documents, and retaining names until appeals are decided would align SIR with Article 326's promise of universal suffrage.