Examine the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission of India's authority to revise electoral rolls. How does the SIR process balance electoral accuracy with the rights of existing voters?

Q. Examine the constitutional and statutory basis of the Election Commission of India's authority to revise electoral rolls. How does the SIR process balance electoral accuracy with the rights of existing voters? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 324(1) vests in the Election Commission of India (ECI) the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is the sharpest exercise of that mandate — and its legitimacy depends on pairing roll accuracy with procedural protection for existing electors.

Constitutional basis - Article 324(1) confers plenary supervisory power over roll preparation and election conduct [1]. - Article 326 guarantees adult suffrage; an accurate roll is the instrument that operationalises it [1]. - Article 325 bars exclusion from rolls on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex — an outer limit on any revision [1].

Statutory basis - Section 21(1)–(2), RP Act, 1950: rolls are prepared and revised in the prescribed manner with reference to the qualifying date [2]. - Section 21(3): the ECI may "at any time, for reasons to be recorded" direct a special revision — the direct source of SIR's authority [2]. - The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 operationalise this through the ERO (registering authority) and BLOs (enumeration) [2][3].

Accuracy: what SIR achieves - House-to-house enumeration, enumeration forms, draft roll, then final roll — targeting dead, shifted and duplicate entries [3]. - Deletion is confined to four grounds: death, permanent shifting, duplication, untraceability [3]. - The 2025–26 cycle covered 12 States/UTs, with the final roll scheduled for 7 February 2026 [4].

Protecting the existing voter - Draft publication opens a claims-and-objections window; deletion follows only after recorded reasons and repeated BLO visits [3]. - Section 24 provides appeal against an ERO's order to the DM/CEO, backed by judicial review [2]. - Friction persists: documentary proof of birth demanded from long-enrolled voters, and system-generated notices lacking contextual sensitivity — as in the Goa notice to a decorated veteran, later clarified as auto-triggered by incomplete form particulars [5].

Thus SIR's authority is constitutionally secure and statutorily precise; the deficit lies in administrative proportionality, not in law. Strengthening BLO capacity, pre-screening auto-generated notices, and widening acceptable documents would let purification proceed without chilling participation — keeping Article 326's promise of universal suffrage substantive, not merely formal.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Part XV — Articles 324, 325, 326 (Legislative Department) — ECI's superintendence over roll preparation; adult suffrage; non-discrimination in rolls 2. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (India Code, Act No. 43 of 1950) — Section 21(1)–(3) preparation, revision and special revision; ERO machinery; Section 24 appeals 3. PIB: "ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters" — BLO house-to-house enumeration, four deletion grounds, claims-and-objections and recorded-reasons safeguards 4. DD News: "ECI to conduct second phase of Special Intensive Revision in 12 States, UTs; final voter list on Feb 7, 2026" — coverage of 12 States/UTs and final roll date 5. "EC clarifies on SIR notice to former Navy chief" — The Hindu, 13 January 2026 (link not verifiable at time of writing) — ERO's clarification that the Goa notice was system-generated due to incomplete form particulars