Discuss the scope of the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950. Are adequate safeguards in place against wrongful deletion of electors?

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) superintendence, direction and control over electoral rolls. In 2026 INSC 564, the Supreme Court upheld the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It held that the SIR rests on Section 21(3), RP Act 1950, read with Article 324 [1]. The power is wide, but the safeguards against wrongful deletion are only partly adequate.

Scope of ECI's powers

• Constitutional duty: Articles 325–326, read with the RP Act, require the ECI to prepare and maintain rolls of qualified electors [1].
• Special revision: under S. 21(3), the ECI may order a special revision of any constituency or part of one. It must record its reasons, and may do it "in such manner as it may think fit" [2]. An existing roll entry creates only a rebuttable presumption, so it cannot stop an SIR [1].
• Process design: the Court upheld the ECI's list of required documents as valid administrative discretion [1].
• Limited citizenship enquiry: the ECI may check whether a person is eligible to vote. It cannot finally decide citizenship. Doubtful cases must go to the competent authority [1].

Safeguards in place

• Notice and hearing under Rule 21A, 1960 Rules: the Court held these were "preserved in substance" [1].
• Proportionality: the Court tested whether the SIR's measures were rationally linked to its aim and not excessive [1].
• Judicial review: people wrongly deleted as absent, dead, shifted or duplicate can challenge the ECI's decision in court [1].
• Mens rea: S. 31 punishes only a declaration the person knows to be false [3].

Gaps that remain

• The 'absent' label: residents moved out of Mumbai and Pune buildings for redevelopment were marked absent and deleted [4]. Notices sent to empty buildings reach no one.
• Wrong remedy: to get back on the roll, they must file Form 6. Its declaration says the applicant is enrolling "for the first time", with a penalty of up to one year's jail [3]. Deleted voters must therefore sign an untrue statement.
• Not binding: on 26 October 2026 the CJI said orally that "nobody will be prosecuted". This is not yet in a written order [4].
• Burden shift: the burden of proving eligibility moves from the State to the citizen. This hurts tenants and the poor most.

The ECI's power is broad, but judicial review and proportionality limit it. The way forward:

• the Court should write the no-prosecution protection into its order;
• the ECI should add a "deleted in SIR – restoration" option to Form 6, using the old EPIC (voter ID) number;
• the ECI should publish deletion lists with reasons;
• officials should check redevelopment registers before marking anyone absent.

These steps would reconcile clean rolls with Article 326's universal adult suffrage.