"Electoral roll purification must not come at the cost of mass disenfranchisement." Examine this statement with reference to recent Special Intensive Revisions.

Under Article 324 and Section 21(3), RPA 1950, the ECI can order a Special Intensive Revision (SIR), in which the electoral roll is rebuilt house by house. Phase-II alone covers about 51 crore electors in 9 States and 3 UTs [2]. The statement holds: a clean roll is essential, but a roll that quietly drops eligible voters defeats Article 326 (adult suffrage).

Why purification is legitimate

• Rolls collect dead, shifted and duplicate entries, and ECI bulletins record such electors separately [4].
• In ADR v. ECI (2026), the Supreme Court upheld Bihar's SIR as proportionate. It found "sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion" [5].
• Outreach was part of the design. BLOs were to visit each house at least thrice, and voters could use the 1950 helpline and "Book-a-call with BLO" [2].

Where it risks mass disenfranchisement

• Scale: in Keralam, petitioners claimed over 24 lakh exclusions [1]. That is roughly 1 in 12 of the State's ~2.79 crore electors [4].
• Distribution ≠ inclusion: forms reached 99.81% of Kerala's electors [4]. Voters are lost when forms are delivered but never returned.
• Burden shifts to the voter: deadlines were tight. Kerala's enumeration window itself had to be extended to 18 December 2025 [3]. After the deadline, voters must find out they were deleted and file claims themselves. This is hardest for migrants, the elderly and the Gulf diaspora.
• Citizenship anxiety: a deletion may be read as a verdict on citizenship. The SC clarified that the ECI's enquiry has electoral consequences alone [5].

Balancing the two: safeguards and way forward

• "Continuing process": the SC refused to formally extend the Keralam deadline but kept a remedy open. Voters can make representations to the ECI, and the ECI must report back to the Court [1].
• Judicial safeguards [5]:
• Existing electors get a presumption of validity.
• Aadhaar was admitted as a document by the Court's order of 8 September 2025.
• Doubtful citizenship cases must be referred to the Citizenship Act authority within 4 weeks.

• Voters wrongly deleted as absent or shifted may seek judicial review.

• Reforms:

• Publish booth-wise, reason-wise deletion lists.
• Notify deleted voters directly.
• Use the existing network of Booth Level Agents [2] to help voters file claims.
• Audit outcomes by comparing names restored with claims filed.

Purification and inclusion are complementary goals, not rivals. An SIR is legitimate only if the roll ends up both accurate and complete. Transparent deletion lists, notice to affected voters and time-bound remedies can deliver a clean roll in which no eligible citizen is lost, keeping faith with Article 326 and the idea of free and fair elections.