Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls pits roll purity against inclusion. Examine with reference to recent State-level outcomes.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 and Section 21(3), RPA 1950. Unlike a routine summary revision, which only amends the existing roll, SIR rebuilds the roll from scratch. It began in Bihar in 2025 and is being rolled out in phases across the country [2]. Its aim of a purer roll is legitimate, but State-level outcomes show a real cost to inclusion.

Purity: the rationale and safeguards

• Cleaning legacy rolls: names are deleted only after BLO (Booth Level Officer) verification, and only for death, permanent shifting, duplication or being untraceable [2]. A bloated roll makes impersonation easier and makes turnout look lower than it is.
• Legal sanction: SIR has been upheld as within RPA 1950 and Article 324 [2].
• Built-in checks: BLOs make repeated house visits; there is a claims-and-objections window, appeals to the District Magistrate, and party Booth Level Agents can flag errors [2]. Special Roll Observers supervise major States [3].

Inclusion: evidence from the States

• Karnataka: the final roll has 4,54,55,689 electors (excluding Service Electors), against a projected adult population of about 5.19 crore. That leaves about 64.5 lakh eligible electors potentially missing [1].
• Youth skew: 59.5% (38.41 lakh) of the gap is aged 18–29 [1]. This group is the least likely to be dead or duplicated and the most likely to be mobile or never enrolled.
• Misleading metric: the Chief Electoral Officer's E-to-P ratio of 66.11 divides electors by the total population, including minors [1]. The right benchmark is the adult share, about 75%.
• Burden shifts to the voter: in routine revision the State finds the voter. Under SIR, voters must prove eligibility through forms and documents, which hits migrants, students and first-time voters hardest.
• Caveat: the gap compares an actual count with 2020 projections [1]. It mixes wrongful deletions with youth who never enrolled.

Reconciling the two

• Post-SIR special drive: BLOs compare the pre-SIR and current rolls, revisit left-out electors and fill Form 6 for first-time voters [5].
• Four qualifying dates a year under the amended Section 14 of RPA 1950 let young people enrol continuously [4].
• Publish deletion lists with reasons, report the E-to-P ratio against the adult population, and allow independent audit of the SIR software.

A roll can be accurate but incomplete, and SIR shows both outcomes. Its purity goal is valid, but it must not dilute universal adult franchise (Article 326). If SIR's success is measured by how far the 18–29 gap shrinks, and deletions are made transparent, rolls can be both clean and inclusive. That would advance SDG 16.7 on inclusive, participatory decision-making.