The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea by 91 Akbar Nagar residents alleging removal of their names from UP’s SIR voter rolls. The Court directed District Election Officers to verify the facts and allowed petitioners to approach the High Court if grievances persist.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday heard a petition filed by ninety-one residents of Akbar Nagar who claimed that their names were removed from the Uttar Pradesh Special Intensive Revision (SIR) electoral rolls after their homes were demolished.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
According to the petitioners, their names were deleted from the voter list during the Special Intensive Revision process carried out in Uttar Pradesh. They alleged that this action was taken after their houses were demolished, and that they were unfairly excluded from the electoral rolls despite being eligible voters.
Senior Advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, submitted before the Court that their names do appear in the special SIR list conducted in 2025. He argued that the removal of their names from the final rolls was arbitrary and required urgent intervention by the top court.
However, after hearing the submissions, the Bench passed an order declining to entertain the matter under Article 32. In its order, the Court stated:
“Considering the factual nature of the dispute, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32.”
The Bench noted that the issue involved verification of facts, which is generally not undertaken directly by the Supreme Court in its writ jurisdiction when alternate remedies are available.
The Court further recorded that the petitioners had already approached the district-level authorities. It therefore issued the following direction:
“Since petitioners have already approached the district BLO and election authorities, the Court directs District Election Officers to verify facts and take remedial steps as per law.”
By doing so, the Supreme Court shifted the responsibility to the concerned District Election Officers to examine whether the names were wrongly deleted and to correct the records if required in accordance with election laws and procedures.
The Bench also clarified that the petitioners are not left without a remedy. It observed:
“If grievances remain unresolved, petitioners may approach the jurisdictional High Court.”
This means that if the District Election Officers fail to address their concerns, the residents can file a petition before the appropriate High Court for further relief.
Importantly, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was not commenting on whether the deletion was right or wrong. The order specifically stated:
“That no opinion has been expressed on the merits.”
This clarification ensures that the authorities and, if necessary, the High Court will independently examine the issue without being influenced by any observations from the Supreme Court.
The matter highlights ongoing concerns surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh, particularly in cases where displacement or demolition has taken place. While the Supreme Court has refused to directly intervene at this stage, it has ensured that the statutory authorities examine the complaint and provide appropriate relief as per law.
The decision reinforces the principle that factual disputes, especially those involving verification of electoral records, should first be addressed by designated election officials before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Case Title:
SANA PARVEEN AND ORS. Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.,
W.P.(C) No. 191/2026,
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Election Officers
