The right to vote is a statutory right but universal adult franchise is a constitutional promise. Examine whether documentary preconditions for voter enrolment are consistent with Article 326.

Article 326 promises adult suffrage to every citizen aged 18 or above, subject only to disqualifications imposed by law. The right to vote itself comes from the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950. Documentary preconditions therefore fit Article 326 only so far as they verify eligibility rather than ration it.

Constitutional promise, statutory route

• Article 326 sets the qualifications. Section 16, RPA 1950 puts them into practice and bars non-citizens from the rolls [2].
• The Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) under Section 21(3), RPA read with Article 324. It found the exercise proportionate [2].

Where preconditions are consistent

• Integrity of rolls: In Lal Babu Hussein (1995), the Court allowed Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to ask applicants seeking inclusion for evidence of citizenship [3].
• No back door: If new applicants faced a lighter standard, names removed in SIR could come back through Form 6 [2].
• Safeguarded process: The documents were "not the sole determinant". They sat within enquiry and adjudication. The ECI's citizenship enquiry is "limited", and doubtful cases go to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [2].

Where they strain Article 326

• Ancestry test: Since July, Form 6 has required ancestry details or linkage to earlier SIR rolls on ECINet [1]. Neither Article 326 nor Section 16 lists this condition.
• First-time voters: Bihar's SIR used the 2003 roll as its base [5]. An 18-year-old migrant's child may have no family entry to link to.
• Scale: In Bihar, 21.53 lakh electors were added through Form 6, against 3.66 lakh ineligible names removed [4]. SIR now covers multiple States [1].
• Aadhaar: It proves identity only, not citizenship (Section 23(4)) [2], so it cannot fill the gap.
• Legality of the change: Form 6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [6]. Changing it only on the form and the portal invites an ultra vires challenge, i.e. that it exceeds the power the Rules give.

Thus, documentary verification is consistent with Article 326 when it confirms the qualifications the Constitution names. It drifts from Article 326 when it adds new ones, such as ancestry. The ECI should:

• make the ancestry link one option among approved documents;
• guarantee notice and a hearing before any rejection;
• publish State-wise rejection data.

The Supreme Court is now re-examining Form 6 [1]. This gives a chance to build rolls that are both clean and inclusive, and to honour universal franchise and SDG 16.7, which calls for inclusive, participatory decision-making.