1 hr ago
Supreme Court Seeks Safeguards Over Delhi SIR Notices
Delhi is checking its list of voters through a process called a Special Intensive Revision.
More than 33 lakh people were sent notices asking them to explain possible problems in their voter information.
The Supreme Court said many notices appeared to be sent almost automatically.
It asked the Election Commission to explain what counted as a “logical discrepancy.”
People challenging the process said the notices were unclear and difficult to answer.
The Election Commission said the notices gave reasons and that it had sent many officers to help voters.
The court suggested extra safeguards, clearer instructions and more help at local offices.
The Commission said genuine voters would not be removed.
The Supreme Court said notices issued during Delhi’s voter-roll revision appeared nearly mechanical and sought additional safeguards.
Petitioners said more than 33 lakh voters received notices without sufficiently clear reasons or discrepancy details.
The Election Commission said notices included reasons, deployed about 14,000–15,000 BLOs and 1,200 EROs, and promised no genuine voter would be deleted.
The court sought clarification of the criteria and possible algorithmic parameters used to identify “logical discrepancies.”
The draft rolls reportedly removed 47 lakh names, with the Election Commission citing migration, deaths and duplicate registrations as reasons.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, Delhi election officials, and petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are involved.
- What
- The court is reviewing concerns about notices and deletions during Delhi’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- Where
- Delhi, India.
- When
- The Supreme Court hearing took place on Tuesday; the articles also refer to an October 29 deadline and an August 31 draft-roll publication.
- Why
- Petitioners allege that voters were given insufficiently clear reasons and criteria for notices, potentially making it difficult for genuine voters to defend their registration.
Petitioners and voter-rights concerns
Election Commission’s response
Notice process
Petitioners and voter-rights concerns
The petitioners said notices were issued to more than 33 lakh voters for reasons such as “logical discrepancy” and appeared unclear or mechanically generated.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission said each notice included a reason and referred to sample notices and clarifications it had issued.
Documentation burden
Petitioners and voter-rights concerns
The petitioners argued that voters who had already submitted enumeration forms and proof of age and residence should not have to provide additional material, and that listed documents might not resolve the alleged discrepancy.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission said the 12 documents mentioned in notices were not exhaustive and maintained that the process was intended to address possible duplicate or inaccurate registrations.
Implementation and voter protection
Petitioners and voter-rights concerns
The petitioners and some lawyers raised practical concerns about reaching voters in Delhi’s migrant communities and multi-storey buildings, as well as the risk of genuine voters being deleted.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission said it had deployed thousands of BLOs and EROs, conducted camps and sensitisation programmes, and assured the court that no genuine voter would be deleted.
Key facts
- Notices issued
- More than 33 lakh Delhi voters, according to the petitioners.
- Draft-roll deletions
- About 47 lakh names were reportedly deleted from a draft roll.
- Reported draft-roll total
- One article says the deletions came from a list of 1.45 crore voters; another says the exercise covered more than 97 lakh voters.
- Booth Level Officers
- The Election Commission said about 14,000–15,000 BLOs were deployed.
- Electoral Registration Officers
- About 1,200 EROs were deployed.
- Stated deletion reasons
- The Election Commission said more than 43.32 lakh people had shifted or were absent, about 2.82 lakh had died, and over 1.41 lakh were registered in multiple places.
- Deadline
- October 29 was cited as the deadline for claims and objections, with a possible extension.
Quotes
Chief Justice Surya Kant
Chief Justice of India and presiding judge of the Supreme Court bench
“In Delhi, problem would be unique. Vast population would be of original Delhiites. But a person like my brother, my sister…we are coming here…we are migrant workers here. I will have to tell I was in Chandigarh, now I am in Delhi. It will ensure there is no double vote”
indianexpress.com
“For example, notice can come to me. I shifted to Delhi in May 2019 after my elevation. Before that, I was voting in Chandigarh. Your logical discrepancy notice can ask me whether in 2019 I was voting in Delhi or in Chandigarh, or somewhere else.”
indianexpress.com
D.S. Naidu
Senior advocate representing the Election Commission.
“not a single genuine voter would be deleted in the exercise”
rediff.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Seeks Clarity on Delhi SIR Notices
Supreme Court to Hear Delhi SIR Notice Disclosure Plea
Delhi Poll Body Says SIR Notices Do Not Mean Deletion
Delhi SIR Flags Advani, Sisodia Among 33 Lakh Voters
Delhi Poll Officials Publish Names Excluded From Draft Roll
ECI Says SIR Notices Do Not Mean Voter Deletion
Supreme Court Seeks Allahabad HC Report on Lakhimpur Trial Judge
Supreme Court Upholds 2018 SC/ST Act Amendment Again
Supreme Court Protects Conscientious Objectors in Vande Mataram Case
Supreme Court Examines Penalties for Refusing to Sing Vande Mataram