UPSC Mains Examiner & Strategic Content Synthesizer. Election Commission of India (ECI) — Powers, Appointment & Electoral Reforms (Polity - Constitutional Bodies). * SC upholding Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) (2026-05-28): Focus on "purity of rolls," Article 324, and the boundary between administrative verification vs. legal citizenship adjudication. * Editorial criticizing SIR (2026-06-09): Focus on plenary powers (Art 324) vs. statutory limits (RP Act 1950), institutional overlap with MHA, and risks of mass disenfranchisement (Art 14). * 3-4 paragraphs synthesizing the narrative. * Focus on: Core Challenge, Gov/Policy Response, Way Forward. * Format: Raw HTML (``, `
`, `
`, `
`). * No markdown blocks. * UPSC Mains GS style (formal, analytical, balanced). * *Core Challenge:* The tension between the ECI's mandate to ensure "free and fair elections" (purity of rolls) and the protection of the fundamental right to suffrage. Specifically, the overlap between administrative verification of voters and the legal determination of citizenship. * *The Evolution/Development:* The introduction of Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) and the subsequent SC judgment. The SC argues it's a constitutional duty under Art 324, while critics argue it bypasses the RP Act and encroaches on MHA's territory. * *The Conflict:* Plenary powers (Art 324) vs. Statutory limitations (RP Act 1950) and Constitutional protections (Art 14). * *Way Forward:* Need for a transparent, codified process for SIR, ensuring checks and balances to prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement, and clear demarcation between the ECI and the Ministry of Home Affairs. * *Paragraph 1 (Introduction/Core Challenge):* Start with the ECI's role under Article 324. Transition to the current tension regarding "purity of rolls" vs. the "right to vote." Mention the SIR as the focal point of current debate. * *Paragraph 2 (Synthesis of Recent Developments):* Discuss the SC judgment (May 2026) which validated SIR as an administrative necessity for electoral integrity. Contrast this with the analytical critique (June 2026) regarding the scale of these revisions and the potential for institutional overlap with the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act. * *Paragraph 3 (Analysis of Legal Conflict):* Explore the paradox of "plenary powers." The ECI uses Art 324 to fill gaps, but this may clash with the RP Act 1950. Highlight the risk to Article 14 (equality/procedural fairness) and the potential for mass disenfranchisement. * *Paragraph 4 (Way Forward/Conclusion):* Propose a balanced framework. Integration of technology for verification, clear guidelines for referring citizenship disputes to the government, and judicial oversight to protect the disenfranchised. * Check: Did I use ``? Yes. * Check: Did I use `
`/`
`? Yes (for the way forward). * Check: Are there markdown blocks? No. * Check: Is it raw HTML? Yes. * Check: Is it UPSC-ready? Yes, terminology like "plenary powers," "statutory framework," and "universal adult suffrage" is used.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), anchored by the plenary powers of Article 324, is tasked with the constitutional mandate of ensuring free and fair elections. A central pillar of this mandate is the maintenance of "pure" electoral rolls, free from inaccuracies and ineligible entries. However, a critical core challenge has emerged regarding the boundary between the ECI's administrative authority to verify voter eligibility and the Executive's statutory power to determine citizenship. This tension is epitomized by the implementation of Special Intensive Revisions (SIR), which seek to remedy cumulative inaccuracies in voter lists but risk encroaching upon the legal domain of citizenship adjudication.

Recent judicial interventions have attempted to harmonize these conflicting roles. In May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's authority to conduct SIRs, asserting that maintaining the purity of rolls is a constitutional duty essential for electoral integrity. The Court clarified a vital jurisdictional distinction: while the ECI can verify citizenship for the limited purpose of updating voter lists under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it cannot issue definitive legal declarations of "alienage," which remains the sole prerogative of the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955. Despite this, critical discourse suggests that scaling these revisions state-wide immediately before elections may bypass the statutory limitations of Section 21(3) of the RP Act, potentially leading to an institutional overlap with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The overarching legal paradox lies in the use of the ECI's "plenary powers" to correct administrative failures that were themselves products of the Commission's own historical oversight. This creates a significant risk of mass disenfranchisement and a potential violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality), as the lack of a rigorous procedural safeguard could lead to the arbitrary removal of genuine citizens from the rolls. The conflict thus shifts from a mere administrative exercise to a fundamental debate on the balance between administrative efficiency and the fundamental right to universal adult suffrage.

To ensure that electoral purity does not come at the cost of democratic inclusivity, the way forward must involve a calibrated approach:

Codification of SIR Guidelines: Establishing transparent, standardized protocols for intensive revisions to prevent arbitrary application and ensure procedural fairness.

Institutional Synergy: Creating a streamlined, time-bound mechanism for the ECI to refer citizenship disputes to the Ministry of Home Affairs, preventing administrative limbo for voters.

Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Oversight: Implementing a robust grievance redressal system where disenfranchised individuals can challenge their removal before the final freezing of rolls.

Technological Integration: Leveraging secure, multi-layered verification tools to reduce human error and "cumulative inaccuracies" without resorting to disruptive mass revisions.