Supreme Court Questions Poll Body Over Notices in Delhi Voter Revision

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned its scrutiny on the Election Commission of India over the notices being issued under the "logical discrepancy" category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, and sought the poll panel's response to a batch of pleas challenging the exercise.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana directed the Commission to file a status report on the steps taken so far and to abide by the interim directions it had issued in the earlier SIR matters concerning Bihar and West Bengal.

The petitions question the manner in which the Delhi SIR is being carried out, including the issuance of notices to voters without disclosing the specific reason or the material on which the objection rests. The petitioners have also challenged the failure of the Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to disclose the names of voters who received such notices and the precise grounds for issuing them, and have sought clarity on what information a voter is expected to furnish in response.

According to the petitioners, the draft electoral roll in Delhi excluded around 47 lakh names, while notices were issued to roughly 33 lakh other voters whose names continued to appear in the draft roll.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the concern was not merely the volume of notices but the absence of clarity about what voters were being asked to establish. He said those receiving notices were being asked to appear with documents even when the notice did not carry enough information to understand the discrepancy attributed to them.

Bhushan illustrated the point with a notice based on an alleged age discrepancy between a voter and the voter's parents, asking how a voter could explain such a discrepancy when the documents listed by the Commission may not contain information about the parents. He also argued that many ordinary voters have limited documentary records, with Aadhaar often the principal document available to them, and questioned why a voter who had submitted an enumeration form and produced proof of age and residence should be required to establish additional facts. A substantial number of voters, he said, had been categorised as having shifted, and he questioned the process by which they were being required to establish their status. He also pointed out that notices had reached retired judges and others, indicating that the issue cut across categories.

The bench specifically examined how the Commission was generating and communicating the notices. Justice Bagchi asked the Commission to consider whether notices were being issued mechanically and whether voters were being adequately informed of the reason for the notice. The Chief Justice asked the Commission to clarify the meaning and operation of the "logical discrepancy" category, remarking that the concept needed to be explained more clearly.

Senior Advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the Commission, submitted that every notice contained a reason and that the issue was not as serious as the petitioners suggested. The Commission also told the Court that the 12 documents referred to in the verification process were not exhaustive.

When the bench inquired whether the Commission had enough officials to assist voters responding to the notices, Justice Bagchi noted that around 30 lakh notices had been issued and asked how many Booth Level Officers had been deployed. Naidu said 14,000 BLOs and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers were in place, that October 29 was the deadline, and that the Commission was open to extending it if the exercise was not completed. The Commission assured the Court that not a single voter would be deleted without following the prescribed process.

The Chief Justice said BLOs should be able to assist voters in responding to notices and suggested that officials could be made available at ward offices so that voters could approach them directly. The Commission said it had already organised camps and created WhatsApp groups for assistance.

Justice Bagchi also suggested that the Commission could prepare standard responses for common categories of objections so that officials could provide uniform information to voters. The Court then directed the Commission to place on record a status report setting out the steps taken in response to the concerns raised before it.