To explain why a voter must be told exactly what a notice asks of them, the Chief Justice of India reached for the nearest example available: himself. A ‘logical discrepancy’ notice, he observed, could just as well come to him, he shifted to Delhi in 2019 after his elevation, having voted in Chandigarh before that, and the authority issuing it might not know his history. The person, he said, should be told what precisely he has to clarify. Around that illustration, the Supreme Court issued notice on a plea over the Delhi electoral-roll revision and pressed the Election Commission toward practical fixes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice on a writ petition concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Delhi, which challenges the alleged failure of the Election Commission of India and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to disclose the names of voters issued notices and the specific reasons for those notices, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant using his own situation to illustrate why a voter must be told precisely what a ‘logical discrepancy’ notice requires of them.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter, in which Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission.
‘A notice can come to me’
The core of the exchange was whether a voter who receives a notice can actually tell what is being asked. The CJI answered by putting himself in the shoes of such a voter, taking the case of a person who has moved States:
“A notice can come to me. I shifted to Delhi in May 2019 after my elevation. Before that, I was voting in Chandigarh.”
The notice, the CJI explained, could ask whether he was voting in Delhi, Chandigarh or somewhere else in 2019, and the authority issuing it may not know that he had earlier been in Chandigarh. The point, he said, was that the person should be told what exactly he has to clarify; a relevant certificate, or even an old 2002 voter list showing the name, might be enough to resolve such a query, and would also guard against double voting.
Returning to the example later, the CJI noted that a large section of Delhi’s population is originally from Bihar, and that for many of them there would be no difficulty because their parents’ or grandparents’ names would appear in the 2002 voter list or earlier rolls. He again placed himself in the same category:
“A person like me, my brother, my sister, we are migrants here. So many people fall in this category.”
If asked where he was registered before 2019, the CJI said, he could simply state that he was a voter in Chandigarh and was now in Delhi, an answer that would ensure there was no double voting.
The petitioner’s case
Mr. Bhushan submitted that the developments in the revision were serious and required examination. He said that 47 lakh names had first been deleted from the draft electoral roll, the majority categorised as “shifted”, and, invoking the parallel of West Bengal, that appeals against deletions could take years to be decided. He submitted that notices were now being issued to around 33 lakh voters, and questioned how a voter could be expected to respond to a “logical discrepancy” notice by producing one of the prescribed twelve documents.
He gave illustrations: a notice flagging that the age gap between a voter and a parent was less than 15 to 20 years, or a gap of less than nine months between siblings, one of whom might have been born prematurely, or an age difference of less than 40 years with a grandparent, could not, he argued, be explained by documents that said nothing about the relative in question. He submitted that responding to the notices was itself becoming a burden, citing an instance relayed to him of a household made to wait for hours and then told the officer was unavailable, and that daily-wage earners could ill afford repeated visits. He also contended that voters marked as “shifted” were not being allowed to use Form 8, meant for shifting, and were being required to file Form 6, meant for fresh enrolment, which he alleged effectively forced them to declare that they had not previously been enrolled.
The Election Commission’s response
Mr. Naidu submitted, at the outset, that the Commission had not even been served with a copy of the petition, that the petitioner had made a representation only a week earlier and had approached the Court before the Commission could respond, and that the petition was premature. On the merits, he maintained that every notice contained the reason for which it was issued, describing the grievance as a non-issue and inviting the Court to examine the sample notices, and submitted that not even a single voter would be deleted without being heard.
He submitted that the prescribed twelve documents were not exhaustive, a position he said the Court had already clarified at the Commission’s own request in connected matters, so that a voter could place any convincing material before the authority to explain a discrepancy, and that the Commission was willing to address and redress the concerns raised. He said manpower had been increased to deal with pendency, that the dissemination-of-information mechanism approved in the Tamil Nadu case had been implemented pan-India, and that in Delhi the relevant locations had been identified through displays and colour photographs. On the requirement of a declaration, he submitted that Section 31 of the governing law made such a declaration mandatory, that it required only an assertion that the information furnished was accurate to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, and he strongly objected to the suggestion that voters were being forced to make a false declaration, calling it an unfounded and irresponsible allegation.
The Court’s suggestions, and the order
Justice Bagchi observed that some refinement of the pool appeared necessary before notices were issued, and that they seemed to be going out almost mechanically, as if computer-generated; the concern, he said, was that a person should be told the specific category, and what exactly needed to be clarified. The CJI suggested that Booth Level Officers should reach out and explain, in plain language, what would resolve a discrepancy, that they might require some orientation to do so and to inspire confidence, and that they could remain available at ward offices, and that voters be assured that a one-time extension, if needed, would be granted.
The CJI’s principal practical suggestion was that the Commission prepare an FAQ-style guide covering the common types of query or discrepancy, explaining what information would be sufficient in each situation, and circulate it widely, through newspapers, websites, municipalities and Booth Level Officers, and to voters where mobile numbers were available. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal drew the Court’s attention to the Election Manual’s provision for door-to-door enumeration and booth-level sabhas.
The Court issued notice on the petition, directed that the Election Commission’s response should also indicate the immediate steps taken so far to address the concerns raised, and listed the matter to be heard after two weeks. The CJI noted that there were no elections in the near future in Delhi.
Why it matters
The CJI’s use of his own example is more than a rhetorical flourish; it makes concrete the difficulty at the centre of the case. If even a person who can readily account for his voting history, a Chief Justice who moved from Chandigarh to Delhi in 2019, could receive a notice premised on the authority not knowing that history, then the ordinary voter, with fewer resources to document a decades-old trail, is more exposed still. The observation reframes the “logical discrepancy” as a problem of communication rather than of the voter’s bona fides: the fault, on this view, lies in a notice that flags an anomaly without telling the recipient what would dispel it, not in the recipient having something to hide.
That framing shaped the Court’s problem-solving posture. Rather than pronounce on the rival contentions, the petitioner’s that the system is failing voters on the ground, the Commission’s that reasons are given, documents are non-exhaustive and no one is deleted unheard, the Bench pressed both sides toward concrete measures: an FAQ guide, Booth Level Officer assistance and orientation, ward-office availability and assured extensions, so that the revision is navigable for voters while the legal questions are examined.
Nothing has been decided. Notice has issued, the Commission has been asked to set out the steps already taken, and the competing factual claims, on the numbers, the contents of the notices and the treatment of shifted voters, remain untested and will be considered when the matter is heard afresh in two weeks; the CJI noted that the absence of imminent elections in Delhi allows time to get the process right.
Case: Writ petition concerning the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Delhi and the notices issued to voters
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Appearing: Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner; Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission of India; Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also appeared
Status: Notice issued; Commission to indicate immediate steps taken. Matter listed after two weeks. Competing claims untested; nothing decided.