The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls seeks accuracy but risks exclusion. Critically examine with reference to recent experience.

Under Article 324 the Election Commission of India (ECI) supervises electoral rolls, and Article 326 limits voting to adult citizens. The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) uses house-to-house checks by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to rebuild the rolls [1]. Bihar's SIR showed that cleaning the rolls is needed but can also exclude real voters.

Accuracy: the case for SIR

• Real distortions: the ECI cited urbanisation, migration, unreported deaths, new young voters and illegal immigrants as reasons the rolls had become inaccurate [1].
• Verification on the ground: BLOs carry out a house-to-house survey instead of relying only on claims and objections [1].
• Orderly process in Bihar: the final roll of about 7.42 crore electors came after a claims-and-objections period, and the ECI reported zero appeals after the final roll [2].
• Oversight: Special Roll Observers were deployed in eight States, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh [3].

Exclusion: where it falls short

• Many more removals than additions: about 65 lakh names were left out of Bihar's draft roll, but only 21.53 lakh were added through Form 6 [2]. The totals alone cannot show whether those removed were actually ineligible.
• Burden shifted to the voter: people left out of the draft had to apply again. This hurts migrants, the urban poor and first-time voters the most.
• Stretched capacity: the schedule was extended by a week [4] and revised again for six States/UTs [5]. This suggests BLOs had too little time per household.
• Loss of trust: 19 Opposition parties announced a nationwide campaign against the SIR and asked the Chief Justice of India for faster hearings on it [6].

Assessment The SIR is justified in purpose. The real dispute is over how it is carried out and who checks the checker. Removing wrong names is only half the job; including every eligible voter is the other half.

Accurate + Inclusive roll = House-to-house verification
                          + Deletions published with reasons
                          + Independent sample audit

Fig: Balancing accuracy and inclusion

To sum up, the SIR improves accuracy but, as run so far, risks exclusion. The ECI should publish deletions at booth level with the reason for each, allow independent audits of a sample of deleted names, set realistic timelines, and help voters with re-entry. This would make the SIR a tool of universal adult franchise and strengthen public trust in elections, in line with SDG 16 (strong institutions).