"Special Intensive Revisions are necessary to keep electoral rolls pure, but they must not compromise inclusion." Critically examine with reference to recent procedural changes to voter registration forms.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) control over electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 allows a special revision of the rolls at any time. Special Intensive Revisions (SIRs) clean up the rolls. Recent changes to the online Form 6, however, show how procedure can quietly make it harder for eligible voters to get on them.

Why SIRs serve purity

• They remove duplicate, dead and shifted entries, and door-to-door checks restore trust in the rolls.
• The law already supports identity checks: the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 allows Aadhaar-based authentication to catch duplicate enrolment [2].
• Since the Bihar SIR, a separate declaration has been added to Form 6 so that applicants make a stronger statement about their eligibility [1].

Recent procedural changes to Form 6

• Online, Form 6 and the declaration were merged under one OTP and one e-Sign "for operational convenience" [1].
• Forms are prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which the Centre notifies [3]. Concern that the form was altered without Union Law Ministry approval was raised in dissent notes by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [1].
• The ECI withdrew the declaration online in States where the SIR was complete (September 2026). In States where it is ongoing, it separated the two documents, each with its own OTP and e-Sign [1].

Where inclusion is at risk

• Legality: Form 6 is back in its notified shape, but the declaration is still mandatory without any rule amendment. The issue is now before the court through the ECI's counter affidavit [1].
• Friction: Two compulsory steps mean two chances to fail. An applicant who finishes Form 6 but not the declaration is not enrolled [1]. This hurts first-time, migrant and less digitally literate applicants most.
• Unequal burden: Applicants in SIR States face the extra step, while those elsewhere do not [1].
• Legacy doubt: It is unclear whether applications filed earlier with a single e-Sign remain valid.
• Opacity: The dissent became public through the press, not through an ECI record.

Way forward

• If the declaration is needed, add it by amending the 1960 Rules, as was done with the 2021 Aadhaar provisions [2][3].
• Publish State-wise data on online applications that are started but not finished.
• Clarify the status of earlier applications, and offer BLO-assisted enrolment in SIR States.
• Make dissent notes part of the formal record, together with the majority's reply.

Purity and inclusion work together: a clean roll is only legitimate if eligible citizens are not left off it. If SIRs rest on properly notified rules, simple digital processes and open decision-making, they can uphold Article 326's promise of universal adult suffrage. They would also advance SDG 16.7 on inclusive, representative institutions.