The Supreme Court heard pleas on the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision, with lawyers highlighting extreme stress on BLOs, including suicides and FIRs. The Court said States must replace struggling workers and ensure no undue pressure is put on them.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today heard a series of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out in different States.
This revision process is meant to keep India’s voter list accurate and inclusive, but several lawyers told the Court that the work is causing serious hardship to booth-level officers (BLOs), many of whom are anganwadi workers and school teachers.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan told the Bench that the situation has become distressing for many BLOs and said,
“35 -40 booth level officers, many of them anganwadi workers and teachers, have died by suicide.”
He also said that notices under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) are being issued threatening two years’ imprisonment for missing deadlines and mentioned that around 50 FIRs have already been registered against BLOs in Uttar Pradesh.
ALSO READ: ECI Set to Launch Pan-India Special Intensive Revision Across 10 Plus States Soon
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant responded by saying,
“If the work is lawfully mandated, it has to be carried out. The State can replace workers who are unable to comply. The State government provides the staff List 3 employees. The ECI should coordinate with the States.”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh added that Tamil Nadu had nearly completed the process, saying,
“In Tamil Nadu, 91% of the process is already complete.”
Sankarnarayanan insisted that the problem was nationwide and not limited to one State. He informed the Court about a tragic incident involving a young BLO and said,
“TN is the first, but the issue spans all States. There was even a case of a boy who wanted leave to attend his wedding, was refused, and later died by suicide.”
The CJI reacted by noting,
“Someone may be unwell or have other genuine health issues.”
Sankarnarayanan replied,
“But the electoral officer supervises them, and they report to the ECI. States are not stepping in.”
Hearing these concerns, the CJI said,
“Since the State deploys these workers, we can direct that those facing difficulties be substituted.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi then pointed out what the petitions stated, noting,
“Your pleadings mention 50 FIRs in Noida and even one against the ECI in West Bengal.”
The CJI summarised the purpose of the application and said,
“This IA has been filed by TVK seeking directions to the ECI regarding BLOs who are being subjected to extreme pressure. The applicant is raising concerns on behalf of workers who, due to health issues, family situations, or other personal circumstances, are unable to carry out the duties assigned by the Election Commission. It is also pointed out that where employees hesitate to perform these duties, the ECI initiates criminal proceedings against them. There is no dispute that staff deputed by the State Election Commission to the ECI for statutory work, including SIR, must perform their duties.”
The CJI then added that hardship should be addressed, saying,
“But if they are facing difficulties, the State government can step in to ease the hardship. The Court directs that the State should deploy additional personnel so working hours can be reduced, and requests for exemption based on individual circumstances must be considered and such workers replaced where necessary. The State is obliged to provide additional workforce whenever required. Any further grievances not covered by these directions may be raised before the Court.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted the urgency and pressure that BLOs were facing, telling the Bench,
“Milords, the threat is genuine. The Uttar Pradesh elections are only in 2027, yet this entire exercise is being rushed through in just two months.”
The CJI responded by saying,
“The state police isn’t under their control, nor are the State Election Commissions. Staff can always be substituted what more can they do?”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi added information about workload and said,
“They are submitting around ten forms a day.”
To this, the CJI remarked,
“If ten forms itself is considered a burden, then what can we really say?”
But Sibal explained the physical strain BLOs face and said,
“But milords, for example there is building without elevator and not every household has elevators. BLOs have to climb stairs and visit each home. The limit is forty forms.”
Dwivedi replied humorously but pointedly,
“Even at the age of 75, I go up and down the stairs myself.”
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan also made detailed submissions and requested the Court, saying,
“First please turn to the judgement of Lal Babu Hussain. It is a very important judgement of almost the same issue relating to removal of name for lack of citizenship.”
He then pointed out issues with guidelines, saying,
“Election Commission has refused to share guidelines of 2003 revision we got them from a whistle blower and we have filed it. (Reads from the guidelines) Its is clarified that it is not a job of the enumerator to decide anyones citizenship. They may remove someone on the basis of age and ordinary residence.”
Bhushan continued and said,
“In case there is issue related to citizenship the onus of proof would lie on the objector. Now see the directive of Assams revision.”
He further explained the role of registration officers and said,
“The electoral registration officers has to make sure as far as possible that only citizens are registered in the role but it is not for them to decide citizenship. You can refer them to the competent authorities.”
He also pointed to major deletions in the electoral roll and told the Court,
“In the final roll, 3.5 lakh names were deleted. And between the publication of the final roll and the voting date, another 3.5 lakh names were added. In the draft roll, 65 lakh names were removed the voter count came down to 7.21 crore. Those 65 lakh people weren’t allowed back on the rolls. These 65 lakh were deleted simply because they didn’t file the form, even though they were on earlier rolls.”
Bhushan stressed the problem with forced declarations and said,
“Later, they were asked to give a declaration saying they were not on the previous roll, just to be included again. Many were forced to file Form 6. The problem is that cyclostyled notices are being issued without stating any reason. What exactly are you doubting my residence, my age?”
On transparency, he said,
“The ECI’s own guidelines require full transparency. All application forms must be computerised daily, and the updated list has to be uploaded every day on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website with the status clearly shown. The web portal should also allow anyone to click and print any application.”
Bhushan added that political parties must be kept informed and said,
“Similarly, the ARO must share weekly lists of claims and objections with all recognised political parties and personally hand them over after acknowledgment. This practice must continue throughout the entire claims and objections period.”
He also highlighted the issue of multiple voters at the same address and told the Court,
“There are so many people with identical addresses. There are rules to go and check where 10 or more people are from the same address. Here in this case we have 500. Mr Yogendra Yadav also pointed it out. The manual lays down clear and detailed transparency requirements. But I am informing the Court that in Bihar none of these steps were followed, and even now they are still not being implemented. The same lack of compliance is occurring in the ongoing exercises in other States as well.”
After lunch, Bhushan continued and said,
“The de duplication software used by us show lakhs of such names which still remain.”
He added that major deletions had earlier taken place and said,
“65 lakhs were deleted in the earlier roles. They were initially not giving but after your lordships told to give they gave. 21 lakh through Form 6 we still sont know how many of them are newly added and how many were in the original list.”
He said transparency had not improved and stated,
“Continuous lack of transparency by the ECI and them not putting the lists in a machine readable form this transparency gap has widened.”
Bhushan then addressed privacy concerns and said,
“They are citing Kamal Nath judgement but it is not a proposition that by giving lists in machine readable form will violate privacy.”
He added,
“It is not a judgement which says that concerns of privacy prevents the ECI to give them in a machine readable form they only say that this manual compel them to do so but you can youself do so. Therefore how will privacy is violated if they give they list in machine readable form.”
He pointed out what he believed was the best method for verification and said,
“The most credible way to find out is to do a social audit. It has been done before in Rajasthan and around 7 lakh name through this were deleted in a very small area.”
Bhushan also argued that the ECI’s timeline rule was being ignored and said,
“They had themselves said that no intensive revision would be done if less than 6 months are left because they them selves know that atleast 6 months are required.”
ALSO READ: More Than Half Voters May Skip Documents in Special Intensive Revision, Says ECI
He then explained issues in publication of objections and said,
“In their counter they are saying that there no need to do a gram sabha because we have put it up on their website but in reality they are not putting the objections.”
Bhushan concluded his submissions and the record noted,
“Adv Bhushan concludes.”
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam then highlighted a legal question related to the ECI’s powers and said,
“Section 21(3) has always been a major concern. Justice Bagchi also questioned the extent of the ECI’s power under this provision it’s essentially their only “ejection button.” It’s a non-obstante clause, but even then it overrides only the specific provision it refers to, not the entire Act. All the grounds cited in the impugned notification are already addressed in the existing rules. In fact, the 1960 Election Manual already provides mechanisms to deal with every issue that has been raised.”
The matter is listed for hearing on 9th December in the Supreme Court.
Read Live Coverage:
Read More Reports On Special Intensive Revision
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
