Discuss whether placing the burden of proof on electors during roll revision is consistent with the constitutional scheme of adult suffrage.

Article 326 gives every citizen aged 18 or above, who is not disqualified by law, the right to be registered as a voter. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began in Bihar in 2025. It asked many voters already on the rolls to prove their eligibility again. Such a burden is constitutionally permissible. It is consistent with adult suffrage only if it is limited, proportionate and fair.

Constitutional scheme of adult suffrage

• Articles 325–326, read with the RP Act, 1950, require the ECI to keep rolls of qualified persons only. Section 16 bars non-citizens from the rolls [1].
• Lal Babu Hussein (1995): a person on the roll is presumed qualified. The objector must prove otherwise, and natural justice must be followed before any name is deleted [2].

Why the burden can be consistent

• Citizenship is a precondition for enrolment. The ECI cannot certify a roll without first satisfying itself on eligibility [1].
• SC verdict (27 May 2026): the Court upheld the SIR under Section 21(3) RP Act and Article 324 and found it proportionate. It held that the presumption can be rebutted and confined Lal Babu Hussein to adjudicatory proceedings [1].
• Burden reduced: about 4.96 crore Bihar electors already on the 2003 roll, roughly 60%, did not have to submit documents [3].
• Limited consequence: the enquiry affects only the electoral roll. Doubtful cases must go to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act [1].

Why it strains adult suffrage

• Default reversed: a right that was presumed now depends on paperwork. The people most at risk are those who are poor, migrants, or have mismatched records.
• Access to documents: the SC had to order that Aadhaar be accepted as a 12th document. It was accepted as proof of identity, not of citizenship [4].
• Scale: Bihar's roll fell from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [1]. In West Bengal, about 1.25 crore voters were flagged under "logical discrepancies", and the SC ordered that their names be displayed publicly [5].
• Asymmetry: if a genuine voter is wrongly excluded before polling day, they cannot vote in that election.

Way forward

• Ask for proof only where there is a specific, recorded doubt.
• Give notice and a hearing under Rule 21A before every deletion, and publish the reason for each one [1].
• Accept widely held documents, provide legal aid, and decide citizenship references before the next election, as the SC directed [1].

Keeping the rolls accurate and keeping them inclusive are both constitutional duties. The State may ask voters for proof, but the exercise must stay targeted and fair, with remedies that work. Then cleaning the rolls stays consistent with Article 326 and the free and fair elections that are part of the basic structure. No genuine citizen should be left off the roll.