The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls pits the purity of rolls against the inclusiveness of the franchise. Critically examine with reference to recent experience.

The Supreme Court has observed that disputes over electoral rolls "are never merely administrative" because they decide who forms the electorate [1]. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) aims at rolls free of ineligible and duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out [2]. West Bengal's experience shows the first aim is being met faster than the second.

Purity of rolls: strengths of SIR

• Constitutional mandate: Article 324 and the RP Act, 1950 empower the ECI to purge dead, shifted and duplicate entries.
• Procedural safeguards: BLOs make two to three visits before marking an elector untraceable; deletions need recorded reasons; appeal lies to the DM and then the CEO [2].
• Judicial oversight: judicial officers decided over 60 lakh objections in Bengal, and the Court set up appellate tribunals of former High Court judges under Article 142 [3].

Inclusiveness: weaknesses exposed

• Scale of exclusion: over 58 lakh names were dropped at enumeration, yet only about 1.82 lakh additions reached the final roll despite 9.64 lakh inclusion claims [2].
• Remedy without relief: the Court held that a pending appeal does not entitle a person to vote [3]. By October 2026, only 1.26 lakh of 38.31 lakh appeals had been decided [5].
• Mixed backlog: a substantial share of appeals are objections to others' inclusion [3], so genuinely excluded voters wait in the same queue.
• Policy ambiguity: the Bengal CEO asked whether appellants qualify for the ECI's one-month Form 6 re-enrolment drive. No clear answer came [5], so those who used the legal remedy may wait longest.
• Equity: migrants and the poor, who often lack documents, carry most of the burden of proof.

Way forward

• Transparency: publish deleted names with reasons, as the Court ordered for about 65 lakh excluded voters in Bihar [4].
• Let appellants file Form 6; acceptance should close the appeal.
• Add tribunals, decide exclusion appeals first, and publish disposal data monthly.

SIR's safeguards are sound on paper, but slow appeals and unclear rules have made purity costlier than inclusion. Accurate rolls and complete rolls are complementary goals. Time-bound appeals and open data can reconcile them, honouring Article 326's promise of universal adult franchise.