The SAVE America Act in the USA and the Special Intensive Revision in India reflect a global tension between electoral integrity and voter inclusion. Discuss with reference to constitutional frameworks in both countries.

Q. The SAVE America Act in the USA and the Special Intensive Revision in India reflect a global tension between electoral integrity and voter inclusion. Discuss with reference to constitutional frameworks in both countries. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

An electoral roll is the operational form of the right to vote. The SAVE America Act (H.R. 22, 119th Congress) [1] and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [3] both seek cleaner rolls — but each tests how far verification may go before purification becomes exclusion.

The integrity rationale - SAVE Act bars States from registering voters for federal elections without documentary proof of citizenship, and creates a private right of action against non-complying election officials [1]. - SIR uses house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers, pre-filled forms, a draft roll, and a claims-and-objections window to remove dead, shifted, duplicate and ineligible entries [3]. - Phase II covered nine States and three Union Territories, including Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal — the first such intensive exercise in over two decades [3].

Divergent constitutional anchors - USA: the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) leaves "times, places and manner" to State legislatures, subject to congressional override; voter qualifications, however, flow from Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment — the core of the constitutional contest [2]. The Bill remains stalled in the Senate [1]. - India: Article 324 superintendence read with Section 21(3), RP Act 1950 empowers the ECI; the Supreme Court (2026 INSC 564, 27 May 2026) upheld SIR's validity while clarifying that it does not determine citizenship [4].

The inclusion counter-current - Documentary thresholds burden the poor, elderly, undocumented and seasonal migrants in both systems [1][3]. - Large-scale deletions sit uneasily with Article 326's guarantee of universal adult suffrage; the ECI's answer lies in supervisory cross-verification, sample audits and public disclosure of rolls [3]. - Institutionally, India routes verification through a constitutional commission, the USA through a partisan legislature — a decisive difference in perceived neutrality [2][4].

Integrity and inclusion are complements, not rivals: a roll is credible only when it is both accurate and complete. Transparent documentation norms, positive-duty outreach in migrant and marginalised areas, and effective appeal remedies can reconcile the two — securing, in the spirit of Article 326 and SDG 16's inclusive institutions, both a clean roll and an unabridged franchise.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. H.R.22 — SAVE Act, 119th Congress (Congress.gov) — documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, enforcement provision, legislative status 2. Article I, Section 4 — Elections Clause, Constitution Annotated (Congress.gov) — State–Congress division of election regulation; voter-qualification limits 3. PIB — "ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being Conducted in Phases with Multiple Safeguards to Protect Eligible Voters" — SIR methodology, BLO enumeration, Phase II coverage, safeguards 4. Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 27 May 2026 (2026 INSC 564) — Article 324 and Section 21(3), RP Act 1950 as SIR's legal basis; SIR does not adjudicate citizenship