Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Examine the administrative challenges it has thrown up.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is the Election Commission of India's ground-up re-verification of electoral rolls, announced nationally in October 2025 and rolled out in phases [1]. Its authority is firmly grounded in constitutional and statutory text; its difficulties lie in execution, not legality.

Constitutional basis

• Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI — a plenary, residuary power that permits a special revision where the roll's integrity is in doubt [2].
• Purity of the roll underpins free and fair elections, held part of the basic structure; only citizens aged 18+ may be enrolled (Articles 325–326).

Statutory basis

• Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows a special revision of rolls at any time for reasons to be recorded — the operative hook for SIR [2].
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe house-to-house enumeration by BLOs, draft publication, claims and objections (Forms 6, 7, 8), and a speaking order after enquiry before any deletion [1].
• The Supreme Court (27 May 2026, 2026 INSC 564) upheld SIR as constitutional and proportionate, holding the choice of admissible documents to be within ECI's discretion [2].

Administrative challenges

• Scale versus capacity: enumerating nine States and three UTs in Phase II strains BLO strength and compresses verification timelines [1].
• Software false positives: Delhi's draft roll generated notices under "logical discrepancies" and "no mapping" for lakhs of electors, including the late economist Bibek Debroy and a sitting Election Commissioner — eroding public confidence [5].
• Documentation burden: exclusion of EPIC and ration cards as proof risks disenfranchising the poor and migrants [2].
• Grievance load: a one-month claims-and-objections window in Delhi must absorb mass notices without diluting due process [3].
• Trust deficit: Bihar's Phase I additions and deletions drew sustained litigation [4].

SIR's legal foundation is settled; its legitimacy now depends on delivery. Strengthening BLO training, publishing reasons for every deletion, extending appeal windows and inviting independent audit would let the ECI advance both purity and inclusiveness — the twin duties Article 324 imposes.