The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has to balance the purity of the rolls with universal adult franchise. Critically examine with reference to Article 324 and Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) superintendence over electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 lets it order a special revision "at any time" for reasons recorded in writing [3]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is sound in law. Its legitimacy, however, depends on whether removing ineligible names also drops eligible voters, whose right to vote is guaranteed by Article 326.

Strengths: Securing Purity of Rolls

• Legal validity: In ADR v. ECI (2026 INSC 564), the Supreme Court held that the SIR is "traceable to Section 21(3) read with Article 324" and proportionate [1].
• Roll cleansing: Dead, shifted and duplicate entries were removed. Bihar's roll fell from about 7.89 crore electors to 7.42 crore [2].
• Procedural safeguards: BLOs verified house to house, and a draft roll was published with a claims-and-objections window [4]. The Court found that the notice and hearing required under Rule 21A were preserved [1].
• Corrective inclusion: 21.53 lakh eligible persons were added through Form 6 [2]. Aadhaar was ordered to be accepted as a document [1].

Weaknesses: Risks to Universal Franchise

• Burden shift: The presumption in favour of an existing elector is "rebuttable" [1]. Voters must now prove they belong, which hurts the poor who lack documents most.
• Opaque deletions: About 65 lakh names were left out of the draft roll, but only 3.66 lakh of the later removals were classed as "ineligible" [2]. No reason-wise breakdown was published.
• Exclusion of the mobile: The "untraceable after repeated visits" category hurts migrants and seasonal workers most [4].
• Admitted gaps: On 1 October 2026, the ECI ordered BLOs to trace electors who were on the pre-SIR roll but are missing from the current one [5]. This is a tacit admission that some eligible voters were left out.
• Citizenship limbo: The ECI may only conduct a "limited enquiry". Doubtful cases must go to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [1], which can leave voters stuck in uncertainty before elections.

The SIR therefore rests on firm constitutional and statutory ground, but it has not yet fully protected inclusion. Before the remaining phases, the ECI should publish deletion data by reason for each constituency. It should also apply the Aadhaar direction everywhere and build re-enrolment drives into every phase before the final roll is published. A roll that is both pure and inclusive would fulfil Article 326 and the ECI's motto: "No voter to be left behind."