'Electoral roll purification must not come at the cost of disenfranchisement.' Critically examine in light of recent SIR exercises.

An accurate electoral roll is the operational base of universal adult franchise, and Section 22, Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the Electoral Registration Officer delete names of the dead, the shifted and the duplicate [3]. Recent Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) show this power is necessary — but its scale makes due process, not authority, the real question.

The case for purification

• The Supreme Court (May 2026) upheld the EC's power to conduct SIR under Article 324 as furthering free and fair elections, holding the safeguards — notice, hearing, objections, appeals — sufficient [4].
• A draft roll is not the final roll: in Bihar (2025), 65 lakh names were dropped at draft stage, 21.5 lakh were restored through Form 6, and the final roll settled at 7.42 crore — a net fall of about 6% [5].
• Genuine churn exists; in a city of tenants and migrant workers, "ordinarily resident" changes for lakhs every year.

Where purification risks disenfranchisement

• In Delhi, 47.6 lakh names — 33% of the electorate — were excluded from the draft roll [2]; draft electors (94.9 lakh) equal just 97% of February 2025 turnout, and in 24 of 70 seats electors now number fewer than those who verifiably voted [1].
• The largest deletion category is "absent/permanently shifted" — a field officer's judgement, not a record like a death certificate [2].
• Section 22 requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before deletion for non-residence [3]; yet notice goes to the very address the officer has declared vacated.
• Deletion is wholesale, restoration retail: the burden of claims within a month-long window [2][7] falls hardest on renters and daily-wagers.

Way forward

• Publish booth-wise deleted lists with the reason for each name, as the Court directed for Bihar [6].
• Re-verify the "shifted" category, prioritising working-age deletions; accept a wide document list including Aadhaar [6].
• Issue one clear public notice of claim deadlines, ending date confusion [2][7].

Purification and participation are complements, not trade-offs. An SIR judged by how few genuine electors it loses — not by how many names it removes — best serves the constitutional promise of free and fair elections.