Archive · 23 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Seeks Clarity on Delhi SIR Notices
The Election Commission is checking Delhi’s voter list.
More than 33 lakh voters received notices because officials said some information looked inconsistent.
The Supreme Court said the notices may have been created too automatically and may not explain clearly what each person needs to fix.
Lawyers for the voters said the notices did not always identify the exact problem or the right documents to answer it.
They also said about 47 lakh names were missing from the draft voter list.
The Election Commission said every notice gives a reason and that its list of 12 documents is only a guide.
It said thousands of officers, camps and WhatsApp groups are available to help voters.
The Court asked the Commission to file a report, improve guidance and follow the required process before removing anyone.
The Supreme Court said notices issued during Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision appeared almost mechanical and might require additional safeguards or filters.
Petitioners said more than 33 lakh voters received notices for alleged logical discrepancies without enough detail about the issue or evidence required.
They also challenged the exclusion of around 47 lakh names from Delhi’s draft electoral roll and sought disclosure of the criteria used.
The Election Commission of India said notices contain reasons, its 12 listed documents are not exhaustive, and no genuine voter will be deleted without due process.
The Court sought a status report, urged assistance through Booth Level Officers and standard answers, and asked the Commission to follow directions from related cases.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, Delhi election officials and petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, representing concerns raised by affected voters.
- What
- The Court questioned notices issued under the “logical discrepancies” category during Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and sought safeguards and clarification.
- When
- The matter was heard on Tuesday during the ongoing revision; October 29 was identified as the current response deadline, and the matter is expected to be heard again after two weeks.
- Where
- Delhi and proceedings before the Supreme Court.
- Why
- Petitioners said voters were not being told clearly what discrepancy they had to answer, what evidence was needed or why their names were affected.
Petitioners’ concerns
Election Commission’s response
Clarity of notices
Petitioners’ concerns
The notices appeared mechanically or machine-generated and often failed to identify the precise discrepancy, supporting facts or information voters needed to provide.
Election Commission’s response
The Commission said every notice contained a reason and disputed the suggestion that the problem was as serious as portrayed.
Documents and alleged discrepancies
Petitioners’ concerns
Petitioners said the 12 listed documents might not address issues involving parents, grandparents, siblings or other family information, particularly for voters with limited records.
Election Commission’s response
The Commission said the 12 documents were indicative rather than exhaustive and could be supplemented with other material.
Administration and voter protection
Petitioners’ concerns
Petitioners and lawyers raised concerns that the large volume of notices, limited guidance and difficulty reaching Booth Level Officers could burden ordinary voters and risk excluding genuine electors.
Election Commission’s response
The Commission cited its deployed officers, assistance camps and WhatsApp groups, said officers could help voters at ward offices and assured the Court that no genuine voter would be deleted without following due process.
- Exercise
- Special Intensive Revision of Delhi’s electoral rolls
- Notices
- Petitioners said more than 33 lakh voters received notices
- Draft-roll exclusions
- Petitioners said around 47 lakh names were excluded from the draft electoral roll
- Discrepancy examples
- Petitioners referred to alleged age gaps involving parents or grandparents, sibling-age gaps, family details and possible duplicate or shifted registrations
- Documents
- The Election Commission referred to 12 documents but said the list was not exhaustive
- Officials
- The Commission said it deployed about 14,000 to 15,000 Booth Level Officers and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers
- Court directions
- The Commission was asked to file a status report, improve voter assistance and follow interim directions from the Bihar and West Bengal SIR matters
Sources
Delhi SIR notices seem ‘machine-generated’, clarity needed on ‘logical discrepancies’, says SC
SIR in Delhi: Supreme Court says notices seem ‘mechanical’, seeks ECI’s response
SC flags 'mechanical' notices to 33 lakh Delhi voters, seeks SIR safeguards
Top Court Questions Poll Body On Notices Issued During Delhi SIR Revision