Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 grants the ECI wide discretion in conducting special revisions of electoral rolls. Critically examine whether this discretion adequately safeguards the right to vote.

Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision of the roll for "any constituency or part of a constituency", in the manner it thinks fit [1]. The 2025-26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows that this discretion protects roll purity well. It protects inclusion only partly.

Safeguards built into the discretion

• Legitimate purpose: ECI cited rapid urbanisation, migration, unreported deaths and foreign illegal immigrants. It also noted that Bihar's last intensive revision was in 2003 [2].
• Constitutional anchoring: In ADR v. ECI (May 2026), the Supreme Court traced SIR to Section 21(3) read with Article 324. It held the exercise proportionate, with notice and hearing under Rule 21A preserved [5].
• Citizenship ring-fenced: ECI's enquiry is only prima facie. Doubtful cases must go to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [5].
• Judicial review: Voters wrongly deleted as dead, shifted or duplicate can challenge ECI's decision in court [5].
• Facilitation: BLOs help voters trace their names in the 2002-04 roll, and voters can file enumeration forms online [6].

Where the discretion falls short

• Scale of exclusion: Bihar's electors fell from 7.89 crore to 7.24 crore in the draft roll, with about 65 lakh names removed. The final roll had about 7.42 crore electors [3]. Official data do not separate genuine clean-up from wrongful exclusion.
• Transparency by court order: The district-wise display of excluded names with reasons came through the SC's 14 August 2025 order, not from ECI on its own [4].
• Burden shift: Voters must now prove eligibility with listed documents. Aadhaar was added only after the Court's 8 September 2025 order [5]. This shifts the burden from the State to the citizen, which sits uneasily with Article 326.
• Vulnerable groups: Migrants, the poor and women who moved after marriage find it hardest to produce papers. One missed form can remove them from the roll before an election.
• Reactive safeguards: The key protections came from the judiciary, not from ECI's original design.

Section 21(3) is legally sound and serves a valid purpose, but its safeguards for voters have so far relied on courts. Three changes would align this discretion with the universal adult franchise of Article 326 and the free-and-fair-elections mandate the Court upheld:

• publish deletion reasons by default in every phase;
• accept Aadhaar as proof of identity at enumeration;
• report gross deletions and restorations separately.