The Supreme Court has questioned the Election Commission’s handling of Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, raising concerns that notices were sent mechanically to large numbers of voters without clearly explaining the discrepancies they were expected to address.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Suryakant issued notice to the Election Commission while hearing a petition challenging the manner in which the revision is being conducted in Delhi. The court sought an explanation for what it described as logical inconsistencies in the notices issued to voters placed on a list requiring scrutiny.
The bench observed that the notices did not contain adequate reasons or details. It said they appeared to have been issued mechanically and indicated that they may have been generated by a machine. The court asked the Election Commission to examine whether filters should be applied before such notices are sent to voters.
The court also said the notices should clearly explain the information being sought from each voter. During the hearing, the Chief Justice gave an example of a person who moved to Delhi after being promoted in May 2019 and had previously voted in Chandigarh. Such a voter, he said, could receive a notice asking whether they had voted in Delhi, Chandigarh or elsewhere in 2019, even though the Election Commission might not have information about the person’s earlier location.
The bench said voters should be told precisely what they are required to clarify in relation to the alleged logical discrepancy. This could be significant for residents who have moved between cities for employment, transfers, education or family reasons and whose electoral records may span more than one constituency or state.
The court also stressed the need for Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to engage more closely with affected voters and to be properly sensitised to the issues arising from the revision process. It suggested that the Election Commission could publish a list of frequently asked questions to address doubts about the procedure.
The issue of the scale of the notices was raised by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner. He told the court that notices had reportedly been issued to around 33 lakh people in Delhi and expressed concern that the notices did not provide sufficient reasons.
The Election Commission told the court that there was time to correct any deficiencies identified in the Delhi SIR process because no election is scheduled in the national capital in the near future. The court’s notice will require the commission to respond to the concerns raised during the hearing. The next steps will depend on the commission’s explanation and any changes it proposes to the notice and voter-assistance process.
