Special Intensive Revisions of electoral rolls aim at purity of rolls but risk exclusion. Suggest safeguards.

Accurate electoral rolls are needed to deliver universal adult franchise (Article 326). A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a fresh verification of every elector, first carried out in Bihar in 2025 [1] and now run across the country. It can clean up the rolls. But it is legitimate only if no genuine voter loses the vote in the process.

Aim: Purity of Rolls

• Removes dead, shifted and duplicate entries that build up over years of routine summary revisions.
• Weeds out ineligible names, which strengthens trust in election results.
• Has due process on paper: no name can be deleted without a hearing and a written order. That order can be appealed to the District Magistrate and the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 24, RP Act 1950 [1].

Risk: Exclusion

• Burden on the citizen: safeguards begin only after a name is flagged. The voter must then reply, attend the hearing and appeal if needed.
• False positives: in the Delhi SIR, a notice reached even a sitting Election Commissioner [3]. Ordinary voters face a higher risk of being wrongly flagged.
• Vulnerable groups: migrants, daily-wage earners and the homeless often lack documents, or the time to attend repeated hearings.
• Institutional doubt: two Election Commissioners flagged "many anomalies" in the nationwide SIR over about 10 months, in formal dissent notes [3]. This weakens public confidence.

Safeguards

• Transparent flagging: publish the criteria used to issue notices, so errors can be checked from outside.
• Presumption of inclusion: keep the hearing-and-written-order rule [1]. Let Booth Level Officers verify on the ground instead of asking voters to prove eligibility.
• Scrutiny by parties: share lists of names missing from the draft roll with all political parties, as was done in Bihar [1]. Also display them booth by booth.
• Accessible process: allow realistic timelines, doorstep or camp hearings, and online claims for migrants.
• Institutional autonomy: give the ECI an independent secretariat, as the Goswami Committee (1990) recommended [2]. This would keep roll revision free of executive influence. Internal dissent should be resolved within the Commission.

SIR's credibility depends on rolls that are both accurate and inclusive. The way forward is to shift the burden of proof from the citizen to the State, make flagging transparent and strengthen the Commission's independence. These steps would reconcile purity with inclusion and fulfil Article 326's promise of no voter left behind.