The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls raises questions of inclusion and institutional trust. Critically examine.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), ordered under Article 324 read with Section 21, RP Act 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, seeks a roll where no eligible citizen is left out and no ineligible person included [1]. Its method, however, tests both goals.

The case for SIR: purification aids inclusion

• Bihar's revision found 1.59% electors deceased, 2.2% permanently shifted and 0.73% enrolled at more than one place out of about 7.89 crore electors — errors routine summary revisions had missed [2].
• Bloated rolls depress genuine turnout figures and leave entries open to misuse.
• Safeguards exist: supervisory cross-verification of BLO enumeration, random audit of deletions, Special Roll Observers, and publication of draft and final rolls [1]; no name is deleted without notice and a reasoned speaking order by the ERO [2].

The inclusion deficit

• The burden of proof shifts to the citizen: over 7.24 crore Enumeration Forms were filed between 24 June and 25 July 2025, and non-filers were simply not carried into the draft roll [3].
• The correction window is the weak link — claims and objections ran only 1 August to 1 September 2025 [2], shorter than enumeration, and hardest on migrants, the elderly and the poor.
• Deletion lists went to political parties [2]; a voter without a party behind them is left unaided.

Institutional trust

• Legally, SIR stands on firm ground, being within ECI's statutory mandate and consonant with Article 324 [1].
• Yet trust turns on appointments: the 2023 Act's Selection Committee of the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition replaced the Chief Justice mandated in Anoop Baranwal (2023), creating a government majority that PRS warns may undermine ECI's independence [4]; the panel may even act with a vacant seat [4].
• With removal as difficult as for a Supreme Court judge [4], Opposition dissent shifts to the street, deepening distrust.

SIR's objective is legitimate; its design must match it. A correction window longer than enumeration, out-of-State filing for migrants, publicly searchable deletion lists, and restoring judicial presence on the Selection Committee would align the exercise with Article 326's promise of universal adult franchise and rebuild the ECI's most valuable asset — public confidence.