Discuss the constitutional and statutory framework for preparing electoral rolls in India. Who should carry the burden of proving eligibility to vote?

An accurate electoral roll is the basis of universal adult franchise. Article 326 entitles every citizen aged 18 or above to vote unless otherwise disqualified [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has made a central question unavoidable: must the State or the voter prove eligibility?

Constitutional framework

• Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls vest in the ECI [1].
• Article 325: one general roll per constituency; no exclusion only on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex [1].
• Article 326: adult suffrage; voting age lowered from 21 to 18 by the 61st Amendment (1988) [1].

Statutory framework

• RP Act, 1950: Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) prepare and revise rolls (Section 21); appeals lie to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer (Section 24); four qualifying dates a year since 2021 [2].
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Form 6 for inclusion, Form 7 for objection, Form 8 for correction [3].
• Field machinery: Booth Level Officers verify house-to-house; deletion grounds are death, permanent shifting, duplication or "untraceable" [6].

Who should carry the burden of proof?

• Case for verification: dead, shifted and duplicate entries invite impersonation, so roll purity is a legitimate aim.
• The State, for enrolled voters: Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO (1995) held that an elector cannot be deleted on mere suspicion without notice and hearing [4].
• Citizenship is not an ERO's call: doubts belong to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [4]. Ancestry or legacy-roll checks turn revision into a quasi-citizenship test.
• Equity: paperwork burdens hit migrants, the poor and women who moved after marriage hardest. Bihar's roll fell from about 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore electors [5], and the aggregate figure does not separate valid from wrongful deletions.
• Balanced rule: new applicants give basic proof of age and residence; for existing electors, the objector or the State must prove ineligibility.

Articles 324–326, the RP Act and the 1960 Rules together seek a roll that is both pure and inclusive. The way forward is State-led house-to-house verification, notice before every deletion, and separate public reporting of re-enrolments. Placing the burden on the State rather than the voter honours universal adult franchise and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive, representative decision-making.