Archive · 2 Sep 2026
Delhi High Court Rejects Plea on Homeless Voter Exclusion
A person worried that homeless people might be left off voter lists during a voter-checking exercise.
He said demolitions in Delhi could have displaced people and made registration difficult.
The Delhi High Court did not agree with this concern.
The judges said there is already a process for registering voters who do not have a regular address.
They saw a draft voter list that included homeless people.
Those entries had names, ages, genders and photographs.
The house number for these voters was written as “0”.
The court also said a person who is left off the list can fill out Form 6.
A booth-level officer can then visit the place where that person sleeps to verify the details.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL alleging homeless people could be disenfranchised during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The court said petitioner Indu Prakash Singh’s concerns about people displaced by Delhi demolitions lacked basis.
It found no “vacuum” in the mechanism for including electors without a fixed address.
A Draft Electoral Roll listed homeless voters with names, ages, genders, photographs and house number “0”.
The court said excluded or relocated electors can submit Form 6, after which a booth-level officer verifies where they sleep.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, ruled on a PIL filed by Indu Prakash Singh against the Election Commission of India.
- What
- The court dismissed a plea alleging that homeless people displaced by demolition or relocation could be excluded from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision.
- When
- The order was dated August 19; the year is not specified in the articles.
- Where
- The case concerned electoral rolls in Delhi and demolitions conducted there over several years.
- Why
- The court found that the existing electoral-roll mechanism already provides for including homeless electors and allows excluded people to submit Form 6.
Petitioner’s Concern
Court’s Finding
Risk of disenfranchisement
Petitioner’s Concern
Indu Prakash Singh alleged that the house-to-house enumeration method used during the Special Intensive Revision could exclude homeless people, including those displaced by demolition drives in Delhi.
Court’s Finding
The court said the petitioner’s apprehension appeared baseless and described the claims about exclusion as unsupported assertions.
Whether a procedural gap exists
Petitioner’s Concern
The PIL claimed there could be a gap, or “vacuum,” in the process for registering homeless electors without a fixed address.
Court’s Finding
The court ruled that no such vacuum existed because the Election Commission of India already had a mechanism for including electors without an address.
Protection after demolition or relocation
Petitioner’s Concern
The petition raised concern that demolition or relocation could prevent affected electors from appearing on the voter list.
Court’s Finding
The court said an elector excluded because of demolition or relocation can submit Form 6, followed by verification by a booth-level officer.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Bench
- Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
- Petitioner
- Indu Prakash Singh
- Electoral exercise
- Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
- Evidence cited
- A Draft Electoral Roll listing homeless people with personal details and house number “0”
- Remedy for exclusion
- Eligible electors can submit Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
- Verification process
- A booth-level officer visits the address given in Form 6 for more than one night to determine where a homeless person sleeps
