Flagging concerns over mechanical and machine-generated notices, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Election Commission's response to pleas challenging the deletion of names from electoral rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Delhi.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a petition by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri. The petition said voters flagged for "logical discrepancies" were not told why they had received notices and which all documents are required to correct those discrepancies.
The court formally issued notice to the ECI and directed it to explain the immediate steps taken. It posted the matter after two weeks, noting that Delhi is not headed for polls soon and there is time to address the issues.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi said additional human checks were needed before notices are issued. The bench said notices should clearly guide voters on the discrepancy. For example, instead of using vague terms, they could ask whether a person voted in Delhi or elsewhere in a particular year.
The bench also said Booth Level Officers (BLOs) should not act as mere postmen. They should help voters trace old electoral entries, certificates or the 2002 electoral roll.
The court suggested that the ECI prepare 10-15 concise FAQs with standard answers. These could be published in newspapers and on the ECI website, and circulated through municipalities, BLOs and SMS.
Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that categories such as an age gap of less than 15 years between a voter and their parent, or less than 40 years between a voter and their grandparent, have no rational connection to an elector's statutory eligibility to vote.
The petition seeks transparency on the number of voters who have received discrepancy notices and the basis for issuing them. Bhushan said the exercise was causing hardship, particularly to poor and daily-wage earners among the 33 lakh notice recipients. He said the notices did not clearly state the reasons or explain the next steps.
The petitioners also alleged that Form 6 was being used for voters who had shifted residence, requiring them to declare that they had never voted. They said Form 8 should instead be used for correcting an address. The ECI strongly denied the allegation, saying that reasons are provided in each notice and calling the allegations irresponsible. The bench took note of both sides and will consider the issue after the ECI files its reply.
Bhushan also argued that the notices do not provide complete details of the alleged discrepancy or explain how it can be corrected. Instead, voters are directed to appear with documents from a list of 12 documents indicated by the ECI to retain their names in the final electoral roll.
He questioned how such documents could resolve specific discrepancies. For example, if a voter receives a notice because the age difference with a parent is less than 15 years or the age difference with a sibling is less than nine months, producing a passport or matriculation certificate would not address the discrepancy.
The bench observed that the nature of the "logical discrepancy" needs to be clarified. It said the ECI should provide guidance on which documents are required for different types of discrepancies. The bench also said voters should be allowed to submit documents through WhatsApp or email instead of being required to appear physically.
