The Supreme Court has described the ECI's power under Article 324 as real but not unbridled. Discuss in the context of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India (ECI) "superintendence, direction and control" over electoral rolls [1]. In May 2026 the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of these rolls. It held that this power is real but "not unbridled", because it cannot be used to defeat an express statutory mandate [3]. The SIR shows both sides of that power.

Real power: why the SIR stands

• Statutory backing: Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision of the rolls [1].
• Genuine need: the ECI pointed to urbanisation, migration, non-reporting of deaths and foreign illegal immigrants on the rolls [1]. Annual summary revision only updates the existing roll, while intensive revision means fresh enumeration [5].
• Scale: Phase-II covered nearly 51 crore electors across 9 States and 3 UTs [2].
• Judicial endorsement: the Court linked clean rolls to free and fair elections [3].

Not unbridled: the limits

• Rule of law: Article 324 only fills gaps; it cannot override the RP Act or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The ECI's move to change enrolment forms without amending the Rules is now being tested on exactly this point.
• Universal adult franchise (Art. 326): in Bihar, about 65 lakh names were left off the draft roll, mainly because enumeration forms were not submitted. The claims stage then added 21.53 lakh names, and the final roll stood at 7.42 crore [3]. When people are dropped for missing paperwork, migrants and the poor are hit hardest.
• Natural justice: deletions must follow notice and a reasoned order. Key safeguards, such as wider acceptance of documents, came mainly through judicial oversight rather than the ECI's own design.
• Perceived independence: the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 replaced the CJI (the Anoop Baranwal model) with a Cabinet Minister on the selection panel. This gives the government a majority on the panel [4]. Wide power without visible neutrality breeds distrust.

Way forward

• Publish lists of deleted names, with reasons, in every State by default.
• Accept common identity documents at the claims stage, and seek proof of citizenship only where there is a specific doubt.
• Change forms only by amending the 1960 Rules.
• Put a neutral member back on the selection panel.

The SIR shows that Article 324 is a power held in trust. It is wide enough to clean the rolls but bounded by statute, natural justice and Article 326. If the ECI pairs roll accuracy with transparency and inclusion, it will meet the Court's test and strengthen free and fair elections, which are part of the Constitution's basic structure.