"Electoral roll purity and electoral inclusion are both constitutional values." Discuss in light of the Supreme Court's scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" over preparing electoral rolls. Articles 325–326 promise one general roll and universal adult suffrage [1]. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows that a clean roll and a complete roll are two halves of one guarantee, not rival goals.

Roll purity as a constitutional value

• Art. 326 gives the vote only to citizens aged 18 and above. Ineligible, dead or duplicate entries dilute genuine votes [1].
• Section 21, RP Act 1950 allows routine revision and also a special revision "in such manner as" the ECI thinks fit [2]. This is the legal basis for the SIR.
• The Court held that verification cannot be "entirely unguided or subjective". It therefore used Form 6's document framework as a guide [4].

Electoral inclusion as a constitutional value

• Art. 325 bars exclusion from the roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. A wrongful deletion is disenfranchisement in practice [1].
• In Lal Babu Hussein (1995), the Court quashed an ECI directive that stopped officers from accepting certain documents. Officers must weigh all evidence, and a name already on the roll carries probative value [2].
• Rigid document lists hit migrants, married women and the urban poor hardest, because they often lack birth or residence papers.

SC's scrutiny: reconciling the two

• Substantive review: In the Bihar SIR judgment (2026 INSC 564), CJI Surya Kant called roll disputes "never merely administrative" because they shape the electorate itself [3].
• No judicial shield: The ECI defended its July 2026 Form 6 changes by citing that judgment. The CJI replied that the changes "have not been made by us" [4].
• Statutory discipline: Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the Court linked it to Section 21(2) revision [4]. Changing it is rule-making, which needs its own legal basis. Article 324 cannot supply that basis on its own.

 Purity (Art. 324, 326) ──┐
                          ├──► guided, reasoned verification ──► credible + universal roll
 Inclusion (Art. 325) ────┘

Fig.: The SC's balancing approach

Purity and inclusion together set a proportionality standard: the State may screen voters but must not exclude eligible ones arbitrarily. The way forward is a uniform Form 6, an open document list where every rejection has written reasons, and notice before any deletion. That keeps the roll accurate and universal, as the Constitution's promise of adult suffrage requires.