"Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has to balance roll purity against universal franchise." Critically examine with reference to recent controversies over enrolment forms.

Article 324 gives the ECI control over preparing electoral rolls, and Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise. The Supreme Court has held that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) rests on Section 21(3), RPA 1950, read with Article 324 [1]. Its aim is legitimate, but recent disputes over enrolment forms show that pursuing roll purity can push eligible voters out.

Roll purity: strengths of the SIR

• Legitimate aim: In ADR v. ECI (27 May 2026), the SC found the SIR proportionate. It said its measures bear a "rational nexus" to keeping the roll accurate and sound [1].
• Safeguards: The Court held that the notice and hearing required by Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules were "preserved in substance". It also found the documentation rules non-arbitrary, with Aadhaar added by its own order [1].
• Outreach: The ECI's special drive of 1 October 2026 directs booth-level officers (BLOs) to compare pre-SIR and current rolls. They must visit left-out electors at home and help them enrol [2].

Universal franchise: controversies over forms

• Scale: In Delhi, 47,56,722 electors were left off the draft roll as ASDD (Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate) [3].
• Wrong form: Form 6 is meant for first-time inclusion, so a deleted voter re-applying on it must make a false declaration [3]. A false declaration is punishable under Section 31, RPA 1950 with up to one year's jail, a fine, or both [4]. The system's error becomes the citizen's legal risk.
• Extra declaration: The SIR-mapping declaration added to Form 6 allegedly has no force of law [3]. The SC said it had not approved any modified Form 6 and sought records of who changed it [5]. This weakens the ECI's claim of court backing.
• Burden on the vulnerable: Migrants and tenants wrongly marked "shifted" must prove eligibility again. This sits poorly with the SC's own presumption in favour of enrolled electors [1].

Assessment The SIR's purpose is sound, but its design is flawed. There is no dedicated form to restore a name deleted during revision [3], so a fix for the state's error is treated as a fresh application.

Roll purity and universal franchise are not rivals: a roll is credible only if it is both clean and complete. The way forward has three steps. The Union government could notify a restoration form under the 1960 Rules. EROs could restore names where Rule 21A was not followed. The ECI could promise not to prosecute re-applicants under Section 31. Together, these would let the SIR meet the inclusive promise of Article 326 and SDG 16.7.