Discuss the mandate and functioning of the Election Commission of India in conducting Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Examine the transparency concerns raised by the Maharashtra SIR deletions.

Under Article 324, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has superintendence over preparation of electoral rolls, and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is its most intensive house-to-house re-verification exercise. Maharashtra's draft roll, excluding over 2 crore electors, tests whether this mandate is being exercised transparently.

Mandate: constitutional and statutory basis

• Article 326 guarantees universal adult suffrage; an accurate roll is its precondition, making roll purification a constitutional duty, not discretion.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950 vests roll preparation and revision in the Electoral Registration Officer, and empowers ECI to direct a special revision for reasons recorded in writing [1].
• Objective: removal of deceased, shifted, duplicate and ineligible entries while retaining every eligible citizen [2].

Functioning: process and safeguards

• Enumeration through Booth Level Officers with pre-filled forms and two-three door-to-door attempts before an elector is treated as untraceable [2].
• Deletion only with reasons recorded, following the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [2].
• Draft roll publication → statutory claims and objections (Forms 6, 7, 8) → final roll, with appeal to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer [2].
• Booth Level Agents of parties verify entries; rollout is phased — Bihar first, then nine States and three UTs covering nearly 51 crore electors [2].

Transparency concerns in Maharashtra

• 2.07 crore names (21.14%) of a 9.79 crore electorate were excluded across 288 Assembly Constituencies — exceeding deletions in Uttar Pradesh (2.04 crore) despite its far larger 13.4 crore electorate [3].
• ECI has not published the Elector-to-Population (EP) ratio, though its own Manual on Electoral Rolls requires disclosure after every revision [3][4].
• Independent estimates using official population projections suggest a ~1.92 crore shortfall, implying deletions may track a demographic gap rather than verified individual ineligibility [3].
• The burden of proof effectively shifts to the elector, disadvantaging migrants and the urban poor.

Clean rolls and inclusive franchise are complementary, not competing, goals. Publishing constituency-wise EP ratios, reasoned deletion lists and sample audits, alongside a liberally administered claims window, would let ECI demonstrate rigour rather than assert it — reinforcing the promise of Article 326 and public trust in a constitutional body.