"Electoral roll purification must not come at the cost of disenfranchisement." Critically examine this in light of the Special Intensive Revision exercises.

Article 324 gives the ECI control of electoral rolls, and Article 326 guarantees adult suffrage [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) re-enumerates voters door to door. It began in Bihar (2025) and has since been extended to other States/UTs [2]. It tests whether these two mandates can work together. Cleaning the roll is a legitimate aim, but only if the process puts inclusion first.

Case for purification

• Integrity of the roll: entries for dead, shifted and duplicate electors make impersonation possible, and SIR targets exactly these categories [2].
• Statutory basis: the RP Act, 1950 provides for preparing and revising rolls, including special revisions [3].
• Built-in safeguards: a draft roll is published, a claims-and-objections window follows, appeals lie to the District Magistrate, and party Booth Level Agents can check entries [2].

Risk of disenfranchisement

• Software replacing process: in Goa's SIR, a family of six filed Form 8 (change of address) on a BLO's advice. The ERONET software could not find their EPIC and offered only "reject", so their names were deleted [4].
• Judicial check: the Bombay HC (Goa Bench) held that a draft roll cannot be the basis for deletion without a hearing. It said the ECI's main duty is to keep as many eligible voters on the roll as possible [4].
• Natural justice: in Lal Babu Hussein (1995), the Supreme Court held that a listed elector is presumed qualified and cannot be deleted without reasons and a hearing [5].
• Unequal costs of error: migrants, tenants and the urban poor are the most likely to fail record-matching. A wrongly retained name can still be caught at the booth, but a wrongly deleted one is a lost vote.
• Burden on the voter: the HC said citizens may ask why an SIR comes after 24 years [4]. Outdated data is mainly the State's failure, not the voter's.

Way forward

• Add a "refer to ERO" option in ERONET in place of automatic rejection.
• Require written notice and a hearing before every deletion.
• Revise rolls continuously and publish deletion lists with reasons.

SIR's aim of an accurate roll is sound, but its legitimacy depends on fair procedure. Combining technology with human review and audi alteram partem can produce rolls that are both clean and inclusive. That meets the ECI's own goal that no eligible elector is left out [2] and Article 326's promise of universal adult franchise.