"Periodic revision of electoral rolls is essential, but the method matters as much as the purpose." Critically examine the Special Intensive Revision in light of Articles 324–326.

Article 324 vests the preparation of electoral rolls in the Election Commission of India (ECI). Article 325 mandates one general roll per constituency, and Article 326 guarantees adult suffrage to citizens aged 18 [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a fresh door-to-door re-enumeration, serves a legitimate purpose. However, its method strains the balance between a clean roll and an inclusive one.

Strengths: a legitimate constitutional purpose

• Article 324 mandate: In May 2026 the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as within the ECI's powers under Art. 324 and Sec. 21(3), RP Act 1950 [4].
• Roll purity: Bihar's exercise flagged ~22 lakh deceased and ~7 lakh duplicate entries [3]. Such ghost entries invite bogus voting.
• Art. 326 eligibility: Only citizens may vote, so verification has a constitutional basis [4].
• Inclusion and remedy: 21.53 lakh eligible persons were added via Form 6. Appeals lie to the DM and CEO under Sec. 24, RP Act [2].

Weaknesses: the method

• Scale of exclusion: Bihar's electorate fell from ~7.89 crore to ~7.42 crore, a net drop of ~6% [2]. Fewer than half of the ~65 lakh draft deletions were deaths or duplicates [2][3]. Most were "shifted/absent" electors, typically poor migrants.
• Burden of proof: Existing electors had to re-prove eligibility. Yet the Court held that a roll entry raises a presumption of citizenship, rebuttable only through proper inquiry [4].
• Citizenship by the back door: Deletion is not a declaration of non-citizenship [4]. Even so, the person cannot vote until the authority decides, which has an NRC-like effect on Art. 326 rights.
• Documents and transparency: Aadhaar was admitted only after judicial intervention, and then only as proof of identity, not citizenship [6]. Deleted names were published only on the Court's direction [5].
• Trust deficit: Tight timelines and little public communication feed perceptions of partisanship. This weakens the free-and-fair spirit of Art. 324.

Way forward

• Publish booth-wise deletions with reasons from day one.
• Serve notice before deleting a "shifted" elector.
• Hear appeals and citizenship referrals before polling, within fixed time limits [4].

The SIR shows that a valid purpose can be undercut by a method that shifts burdens onto the vulnerable. Transparent deletions, inclusive documentation and accessible remedies would let the ECI honour both Article 324's mandate and Article 326's promise. The roll would then be as inclusive as it is accurate, in line with SDG 16.7 on inclusive decision-making.