"Purifying electoral rolls must not come at the cost of disenfranchising eligible citizens." Critically examine this in the context of the Special Intensive Revision.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) control over electoral rolls, and Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950 allows a special revision at any time [9]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began in Bihar and has now reached Delhi. It tests whether a clean roll can coexist with universal adult franchise under Article 326. The statement largely holds: purifying the roll is legitimate, but the method must not shift the risk onto genuine voters.

Case for purification

• Legal mandate: In May 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Article 324 is only a residual power and upheld the ECI's power to conduct the SIR [6].
• Electoral integrity: Dead, shifted and duplicate entries make impersonation possible. Bihar's roll fell from 7.89 crore to 7.24 crore at the draft stage [11][3].
• Court-backed transparency: Excluded names were published online, searchable by EPIC number [4], and Aadhaar was accepted as proof of identity [5].

Risk of disenfranchisement

• Deletion is not proof of ineligibility: The final Bihar roll had 7.42 crore electors, including about 21.5 lakh added through Form 6 [2]. Many voters left out at first came back only by filing claims. Migrants, renters and women who moved after marriage are the most likely to be marked "absent".
• Burden on the voter: Lal Babu Hussein (1995) held that a listed voter cannot be removed on reports alone, without a fair inquiry [10]. Yet the ECI now asks left-out electors to re-enrol through Form 6 [8].
• False-declaration trap: Deleted Delhi voters are allegedly being made to declare that they never voted before, under threat of imprisonment [1]. Section 31 punishes a false declaration with up to one year in prison [9]. The ECI says the Supreme Court upheld this declaration [7], and the Court is now set to examine the issue [1].
• Tight timeline: Claims close on 30 October 2026, so the CJI moved the hearing up to 28 October [1].

Way forward

• Allow Form 8, or a dedicated restoration form, in which the voter confirms their earlier entry instead of denying it [1].
• Apply the Bihar safeguards to Delhi: publish deleted names with reasons and accept Aadhaar for claims [4][5].
• Require a second BLO visit and written notice before any "absent" voter is deleted.
• Extend the claims window for deleted voters only.

A pure roll and an inclusive roll are both duties of the ECI under Article 324. The test of the SIR is not how many names it removes but how easily a wrongly removed citizen can return. Restoration that is simple and carries no risk of prosecution would keep purification consistent with Article 326 and SDG 16.7 (inclusive decision-making), and would preserve trust in the ballot.