Discuss the constitutional and statutory basis of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. How can the integrity of electoral rolls be balanced against the risk of wrongly excluding voters?

The Supreme Court has called the electoral roll "the legal record of that political community" [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a fresh house-to-house re-enumeration of voters, not a routine update. It is legally sound, but it is only legitimate if eligible voters stay on the roll after it.

Constitutional basis

• Article 324 gives the Election Commission (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" of electoral rolls [1].
• Articles 325–326 require one general roll and universal adult suffrage. Wrongly excluding a voter is therefore a constitutional injury, not a clerical slip [1].

Statutory basis

• Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision "at any time, for reasons to be recorded… in such manner as it may think fit" [2].
• Section 16 bars non-citizens from enrolment [2]. So the SC allowed only a limited citizenship enquiry, used for electoral purposes alone [1].
• Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 keeps notice and hearing in place before a name is deleted [1].
• In 2026 INSC 564, the SC held that the SIR draws its power from Section 21(3) read with Article 324, and that it is proportionate [1].

Balancing integrity and inclusion

• Integrity: dead, shifted and duplicate entries distort election results. The SC called restoring the roll's "accuracy, completeness, and integrity" a constitutionally grounded aim [1].
• Exclusion risk: names already on the roll carry a presumption of validity [1]. Yet re-enumeration makes long-time voters prove their eligibility again. This hurts seasonal migrants marked "shifted/absent" and people without documents the most.

Way forward

• Due process: an officer should issue a reasoned order for every rejection, not leave it to software. Appeals should be decided within a fixed time [2].
• Documents: accept Aadhaar as proof of identity, as the SC directed. Real doubts about citizenship should go to the authority under the Citizenship Act, not lead to automatic deletion [1].
• Verification: make a second visit or send a notice before deleting a "shifted/absent" name. Reopen claims where draft deletions are unusually high.
• Transparency: publish booth-wise figures for draft deletions, claims and restorations, by reason.
• Trust: the Law Commission's 255th Report urged a stronger, more independent ECI [3]. A neutral referee makes the roll credible.

The SIR stands on firm constitutional and statutory ground, but being legal does not make the roll accurate. A clean but incomplete roll fails Article 326 just as a padded one does. Due process, transparency and an independent ECI can make rolls both accurate and inclusive, honouring "one person, one vote" and SDG 16.7.