The Supreme Court on Wednesday scheduled an October 28 hearing on a petition seeking directions to the Election Commission to disclose the names of voters issued notices during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi’s electoral rolls, along with the specific reasons for issuing them. The petition also seeks a separate mechanism to restore the names of previously registered voters removed during the revision exercise.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi advanced the hearing after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, requested that the matter be taken up before the October 30 deadline for filing claims and objections.
Bhushan informed the court that notice had already been issued on the main petition and that the matter was likely to be heard on October 30. Following his request, the bench fixed October 28 for the hearing.
When Bhushan pressed for an even earlier date, the bench indicated that it was considering passing an order to address the concerns raised.
Petitioners Seek Separate Process for Restoring Deleted Voters
The petition filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri raises questions about the procedure prescribed for restoring voters whose names were removed from Delhi’s electoral rolls during the SIR.
In a recent application, the petitioners argued that individuals who were previously registered as voters should not be required to submit a declaration under Form 6 indicating that they are applying for enrolment for the first time.
Form 6 is used by eligible individuals seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
The petitioners have requested the Election Commission to introduce a suitable form or declaration specifically for previously enrolled voters seeking restoration of their names.
They have also sought directions to ensure that otherwise valid applications are not rejected solely because an applicant has not submitted the additional declaration required under the revision exercise.
Disclosure of Logical Discrepancy Criteria Sought
The petitioners have also demanded publication of the list of voters who received notices during the SIR, specifying the reasons for each notice.
They have sought disclosure of the criteria, definitions, computer-based parameters and operational guidelines used to classify voters under the category of “logical discrepancies”.
During the September 22 hearing, the Supreme Court expressed concern that notices under the revision exercise appeared to have been issued almost mechanically.
The court asked the Election Commission to consider additional safeguards and clarify the basis for identifying logical discrepancies in voter records.
47 Lakh Names Removed From Draft Electoral Roll
The Election Commission published Delhi’s draft electoral roll on August 31, removing 47 lakh names from an electorate of approximately 1.45 crore.
According to the commission, more than 43.32 lakh voters had either shifted or were absent during verification. More than 2.82 lakh voters were recorded as deceased, while over 1.41 lakh were found registered at multiple locations.
On September 26, the Election Commission extended the deadline for filing claims and objections by one month to October 30. The final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on December 4.
The Supreme Court will examine the petitioners’ demands concerning disclosure of voter notices, the grounds for identifying electoral discrepancies and the procedure for restoring previously registered voters when the matter comes up on October 28.
