Does the Election Commission's power of superintendence over electoral rolls extend to placing the burden of re-proving eligibility on existing voters? Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court observations.

Article 324 gives the ECI "superintendence, direction and control" over preparing electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the RPA, 1950 lets it order a special revision "for reasons to be recorded" [2]. Recent Supreme Court observations show this power covers checking eligibility. It does not cover making enrolled voters prove their eligibility all over again.

Reach of the power: what the Court upheld

• ADR v. ECI (2026 INSC 564) upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) under Sec 21(3) read with Art. 324 and found it proportionate [3].
• Being on the roll creates a presumption of validity, but evidence can rebut it. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) protects individual voters; it does not block a revision of the whole roll [3].
• Sec 16 bars non-citizens from the roll. So the ECI may make a limited citizenship enquiry, and must refer doubtful cases to the authority under the Citizenship Act [3].
• Removing dead and duplicate entries is a valid goal of roll purity [5].

Limits: the Court's October 2026 observations

• Statutory forms: Forms 6, 7 and 8 are prescribed under Rule 13 [4]. The Bench called them "cast in stone", so an ECI instruction cannot change them [1].
• Penal risk: an existing voter who files Form 6 (the claim form for new electors) makes a false declaration. Sec 31 punishes this with up to one year in prison [2][1].
• "Logical discrepancy": this category was not used in Bihar and was allowed in West Bengal only as an interim measure. The Bench asked how voters on the 2003 roll can be removed on this ground [1].
• Migrants: Delhi's SIR flagged 47.56 lakh of 1.45 crore electors (~32.8%). A month away from home does not mean a voter has "permanently shifted" [1].
• No outside audit: Parliament was told of only internal checks, with no independent review [5].

Way forward

• Bring in any re-verification form by amending the 1960 Rules under Sec 28 [2].
• Serve a personal notice and hearing before every deletion except a confirmed death, as the ECI's own FAQ promises [6]. Keep Rule 21A objections and Rule 23 appeals open in practice [3][4].
• Publish deletions booth by booth, with the reason for each, and order an independent audit [5].

The Court's position is clear: the ECI may rebut the presumption in favour of enrolled voters with evidence, but it cannot shift the burden of proof onto them. A roll that is both clean and inclusive, built through fair procedure, is what universal adult suffrage under Article 326 requires.