The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which notices are being issued to voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, raised questions about notices issued under the category of “logical discrepancy.”
According to figures presented during the proceedings, around 33.13 lakh electors whose names remain in the draft electoral roll have been identified under the categories of “no mapping” and “logical discrepancies.” Of these, around 13.8 lakh voters were categorised as having no mapping with the 2002 electoral roll, while about 19.3 lakh were placed under the logical discrepancy category.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned whether some notices were being issued “almost mechanically” and asked the Election Commission to examine whether additional filters were needed before notices were sent to voters. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also sought greater clarity about the process used to identify voters under the logical discrepancy category.
The court’s concern centred on whether voters receiving notices were being given sufficient information about the specific discrepancy they were required to address. Chief Justice Surya Kant gave an example of a voter who had previously been registered in another city before moving to Delhi, noting that a notice should clearly explain what information the voter needs to clarify.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that voters should be told precisely why they had received notices and what documents or information would be sufficient to respond. They also questioned whether the documents mentioned by the Election Commission would always allow voters to address the discrepancies identified in their records.
The Election Commission, represented by senior advocate D.S. Naidu, told the court that notices contained reasons for being issued and said the documents referred to in the verification process were not exhaustive. The Commission also informed the court about the administrative arrangements being made to assist voters during the verification exercise.
The Election Commission said around 14,000 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) had been deployed for the exercise. The authorities have also been using assistance camps and other mechanisms to help voters respond to notices and complete the verification process.
The court also considered ways of making the process clearer and more accessible for voters. Suggestions discussed during the proceedings included providing standardised explanations for common categories of discrepancies and making officials available to help voters understand what information would be sufficient to respond to a notice.
The ongoing SIR exercise has already resulted in substantial changes to the draft electoral roll in Delhi. According to figures reported during the proceedings, more than 47 lakh names were excluded from the draft roll under categories including absent, shifted, dead and duplicate voters. The Election Commission has maintained that receiving a notice does not by itself mean that a voter has been declared ineligible, and that voters will have an opportunity to respond before the final electoral roll is prepared.
The petition before the Supreme Court has also raised concerns about transparency in the electoral-roll revision process, including the disclosure of the names of voters receiving notices and the reasons for those notices. The petitioners have sought greater clarity regarding the criteria and operational process used for identifying logical discrepancies.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission and sought a status report on the steps being taken to address the concerns raised before it. The court has also asked the poll panel to consider safeguards that could make the notice and verification process more understandable to voters.
The Delhi SIR process is continuing, with the claims and objections process scheduled to run through September 30. According to the timeline presented before the court, disposal of notices is expected by October 29, while publication of the final electoral roll is scheduled for November 4, although the Election Commission indicated that the timeline could be extended if necessary.
The Supreme Court’s intervention does not itself determine whether the SIR exercise or individual notices are legally valid. The proceedings are focused on questions concerning the procedure, transparency, clarity of notices and safeguards for voters. The Election Commission’s response and subsequent court proceedings will determine how the concerns raised during the hearing are addressed.
Be First to Comment