"The power to revise electoral rolls must be balanced against the universality of adult franchise." Examine this in light of the Special Intensive Revision.

Article 326 gives every adult citizen the right to vote. Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950 allow the Election Commission of India (ECI) to order a special revision of the rolls "in such manner as it may think fit" [1][2]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows that both serve free and fair elections only if the roll is cleaned without excluding eligible voters.

Why the power to revise is legitimate

• Roll purity: rolls that still list dead, shifted and duplicate voters make impersonation possible. Bihar's last intensive revision was in 2003 [3].
• Judicial endorsement: in ADR v. ECI (2026), the Supreme Court upheld the SIR under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) [4].
• Inclusion, not just deletion: about 21.53 lakh new electors were added in Bihar through Form 6 [5].

How the SIR strains universal franchise

• Scale of exclusion: about 65 lakh names were left out of Bihar's draft roll. The final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore [5].
• Burden shifted to the voter: voters already on the roll had to prove they were eligible again. Lal Babu Hussein (1995) held that a listed voter cannot be removed without notice and an individual inquiry, and it rejected sweeping notices [6].
• Vulnerable groups hit hardest: migrants and people with few documents suffer most. Voters from Delhi and Kolkata spoke of "mapping discrepancy" notices, being wrongly marked dead, and being asked for Aadhaar "to prove citizenship" [7].

Striking the balance

• Due process everywhere: the ECI says it gives prior notice and that booth-level officers (BLOs) visit two to three times before marking an elector untraceable [8]. Notice plus a reasoned order should become a binding rule in every State.
• Separate identity from citizenship: Aadhaar should be accepted to confirm identity. Genuine doubts about citizenship should go to the competent authority, not be decided by field officers.
• Transparency and remedies: publish booth-wise deletion lists with reasons, and keep the first and second appeals before the District Magistrate and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) quick and accessible [5].
• Accountability: the ECI should place an SIR report before Parliament.

Overall, the SIR's aim of a clean roll is constitutionally sound, but its method must fit that aim. The ECI should remove dead and duplicate entries rigorously while presuming that existing electors are eligible. That would reconcile Article 324 with Article 326 and keep the roll both accurate and universal, in line with SDG 16.7's call for inclusive, representative decision-making.