The Supreme Court, during the hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, raised concerns over the difficulties voters may face in responding to notices issued on the ground of “logical discrepancies” in their electoral records.
A key issue before the Court was whether voters would have sufficient clarity about the material they could submit to address such discrepancies. The matter was heard by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
The petitioners’ side pointed to examples involving differences in the recorded ages of voters and their parents or grandparents, as well as cases where the age gap between siblings was less than nine months. It was argued that the 12 documents referred to for responding to the notices may not necessarily establish facts relating to such discrepancies.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, however, submitted that the notices specify the reason for which a voter has been flagged. “Every notice contains a reason,” he submitted. The ECI also clarified that the 12 documents were not exhaustive and that voters could provide other convincing material to explain a discrepancy. A birth certificate of a sibling was cited as one possible example.
On the practical difficulties in requiring voters to personally approach officials, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Adv Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioners’ side, referred to an instance where a person responding to a notice allegedly had to wait for hours before being told that the concerned officer was unavailable.
The Court suggested measures to make the process more accessible, including standardised responses to commonly raised queries and greater use of ward offices and Booth Level Officers (BLO) The Court also suggested that voters should not necessarily be required to appear physically to respond to notices.
“
“People should be entitled to answer the query online,” the Court said.
The Election Commission agreed to facilitate responses through WhatsApp and email. It also submitted that camps were being conducted and that BLOs were being sensitised to assist voters in understanding what information would be sufficient.
The Court further discussed the accessibility of information relating to affected voters and difficulties that could arise where people did not know their constituency or part number.
On voters who had shifted to Delhi and the use of Forms 6 and 8, the petitioner alleged that shifted voters were being asked to use Form 6 instead of Form 8 and argued that the declaration required under Form 6 could create difficulties for those who had previously voted elsewhere.
The Election Commission disputed this allegation as “unfounded” and submitted that the declaration requirement was mandatory. The Commission also indicated that the deadline could be extended if necessary, noting that Delhi was not an election-bound State.
The Court ultimately issued notice in the petition and directed the authorities to file a first status report setting out the steps taken in the matter. The CJI also referred to the interim directions passed in the Bihar and West Bengal SIR matters and directed the authorities to follow them, including the requirement to publish the names of excluded persons along with the reasons for their exclusion.