Large-scale deletions from electoral rolls risk disenfranchising vulnerable populations. Evaluate the balance between electoral roll integrity and the protection of franchise rights in light of the 2026 West Bengal SIR exercise.

Q. Large-scale deletions from electoral rolls risk disenfranchising vulnerable populations. Evaluate the balance between electoral roll integrity and the protection of franchise rights in light of the 2026 West Bengal SIR exercise. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

A clean electoral roll is the foundation of free and fair elections under Article 324, yet in West Bengal nearly 1.25 crore entries were flagged as "logical discrepancies" during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [1] — making integrity and inclusion competing, not automatic, goods. The balance was struck, but only through sustained judicial supervision.

Merits of the integrity drive - SIR uses house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers, draft publication and a claims-and-objections window, with deletions only after verification of death, shifting or duplication [5] — a due-process design, not summary removal. - It targets a real defect: of over 60 lakh names examined in West Bengal, nearly 27 lakh were found ineligible while 32 lakh were confirmed eligible [4], showing both bogus entries and the correction mechanism at work.

Risks to franchise of vulnerable groups - "Logical discrepancy" flags rest on parent-name mismatches and age-gap anomalies against 2002 rolls [1] — proxies that penalise migrants, the poor and the poorly documented rather than the ineligible. - Adjudicatory capacity was inadequate: the State did not supply enough Grade 'A' officers, forcing the Supreme Court to deploy serving and former district judges [2]. Rights-determining decisions by under-ranked staff invite arbitrary exclusion. - Appeals numbering in lakhs against tight pre-poll deadlines [3] mean procedural delay itself can disenfranchise.

How balance was restored Judicial intervention supplied the missing safeguards — public display of flagged names at gram panchayat and block offices with a document-submission facility [1], judicial officers for adjudication [2], and 19 Appellate Tribunals under former High Court judges, with appeals accepted online via ECI NET or at DM/SDM offices [3].

On balance, roll integrity was preserved without wholesale disenfranchisement, but the equilibrium was court-supplied rather than institutionally guaranteed. Equipping the ECI with a permanent quasi-judicial cadre, statutory appeal timelines and evidence-based flagging criteria would make inclusion the default — aligning roll revision with the constitutional promise of universal adult franchise under Article 326.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. SC directs ECI to display names of voters under logical discrepancies in West Bengal voter list — DD News/Akashvani — 1.25 crore flagged entries; discrepancy criteria; display at gram panchayat/block offices 2. SC directs serving and former district judges to assist EC in West Bengal's SIR of electoral rolls — DD News/Akashvani — State's shortfall of Grade 'A' officers; deployment of judicial officers 3. ECI sets up 19 Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal for voter roll appeals — Akashvani News — tribunals under former High Court judges; appeal routes and volume 4. EC releases full voter list under judicial review in West Bengal — Akashvani News — 60 lakh names scrutinised; 27 lakh ineligible, 32 lakh confirmed eligible 5. ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters — PIB — SIR methodology and procedural safeguards before deletion