The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which notices are being issued to voters under the logical discrepancy category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, with the bench observing that the

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which notices are being issued to voters under the logical discrepancy category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, with the bench observing that the

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which notices are being issued to voters under the logical discrepancy category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, with the bench observing that the

The  Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which notices are being issued to voters under the logical discrepancy category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, with the bench observing that the notices appeared to have been issued almost mechanically.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought clarity on the criteria used to identify voters as having a logical discrepancy and asked the poll panel to explain how such notices were generated and communicated. The Court also directed the authorities to file a status report setting out the steps taken to address the concerns raised in the petitions.

The hearing followed a petition filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging the alleged lack of transparency in the Delhi SIR process. The petitioners have sought disclosure of the names of voters who were issued notices, along with the specific reasons and material forming the basis of each notice. They have also sought disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines used to classify voters under logical discrepancies.

According to the petition, around 33.13 lakh electors included in the draft roll were identified for notices on the grounds of either No Mapping or Logical Discrepancies. Of these, nearly 19.33 lakh were categorised under logical discrepancies and about 13.79 lakh under no mapping. The petitioners have alleged that the authorities did not provide voters sufficient information to understand why they had been called for verification.

 mThe issue assumed significance against the backdrop of the draft electoral roll published on August 31, which excluded around 47.56 lakh names from the existing rolls. The petitioners argued that the sheer scale of the exercise made it particularly important for every voter receiving a notice to be told precisely what discrepancy had been detected and what evidence was required to address it.

Bhushan told the Court that voters were being asked to produce documents even in cases where the alleged discrepancy could not necessarily be established through the documents specified by the ECI. He cited the example of a notice alleging that the age difference between a voter and their parents was less than 15 years, questioning how a voter could establish the circumstances when the listed documents might not contain details about the parents.

The petitioners also raised concerns about voters with limited documentary records. Bhushan submitted that Aadhaar was often the principal document available to ordinary citizens containing their name, age and address, and questioned why a person who had already submitted an enumeration form and proof of age and residence should be required to furnish additional material.

The ECI, however, defended the procedure. Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the Commission, said reasons had been assigned in the notices and contended that the 12 documents referred to in the verification process were not exhaustive. He also told the Court that the Commission had deployed substantial manpower to handle the exercise.

When Justice Bagchi asked how the Commission would handle more than 30 lakh notices, the ECI said around 14,000 Booth Level Officers and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers had been deployed. The Commission also informed the Court that assistance camps, sensitisation programmes and WhatsApp groups had been created to help voters.

The bench suggested further measures to make the process easier for voters. Justice Bagchi suggested making BLOs available at ward offices, while the Chief Justice proposed standardised responses for common categories of objections so that voters could understand what information would be sufficient to answer a notice.

The Court also directed the authorities to follow interim directions issued earlier in the Bihar and West Bengal SIR matters, including requirements relating to disclosure of excluded voters and reasons. The ECI indicated that October 29 was the deadline for the present verification exercise but said it was open to an extension if required.