Supreme Court: ECI Delhi Mechanical Notices Challenged in Voter Roll Revision

• The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the "mechanical" issuance of notices to over 33 lakh Delhi voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• Notices were sent to voters flagged for "no mapping" with the 2002 roll or "logical discrepancies," prompting the Court to seek clarification on the criteria and manpower used.
• A petition by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, argued by Prashant Bhushan, demands transparency, including disclosure of voter names, specific reasons for notices, and the algorithmic parameters for identifying discrepancies.
• The draft electoral roll, published on August 31, 2026, saw 47.7 lakh names removed from Delhi's 1.45 crore electors, with the final roll expected on November 4, 2026.
• This Supreme Court inquiry follows a May ruling by a CJI Surya Kant-led bench that upheld Bihar's SIR, affirming its consistency with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Article 324 of the Constitution.

The Court's inquiry focused on notices sent to more than 33 lakh voters whose names were flagged for either a lack of mapping with the 2002 electoral roll or for exhibiting "logical discrepancies."

The Supreme Court of India recently challenged the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the method used to issue notices to voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Delhi's electoral rolls. On Tuesday, September 22, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, expressed concern that these notices appeared to have been issued "almost mechanically."

The Court's inquiry focused on notices sent to more than 33 lakh voters whose names were flagged for either a lack of mapping with the 2002 electoral roll or for exhibiting "logical discrepancies." The bench specifically sought clarification from the ECI on the underlying basis for identifying voters under this "logical discrepancy" category. Furthermore, the Supreme Court requested detailed information concerning the manpower deployed by the ECI for this extensive verification exercise, underscoring its commitment to ensuring due process in electoral roll revisions.

The Supreme Court's intervention stems from a petition filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, with advocate Prashant Bhushan arguing the case. The petitioners have raised significant concerns about the ECI's failure to disclose crucial information, including the names of voters who received notices and the specific reasons behind each notification. Bhushan highlighted the opaque nature of the process, noting that despite rules requiring disclosure, the ECI has not published the names of individuals receiving notices nor the reasons for them.

The petition specifically demands a searchable, consolidated list that identifies all electors who have received notices, along with the precise justification for each. Additionally, it seeks the disclosure of the criteria, algorithmic parameters, and operational guidelines employed by the ECI to identify what it terms "logical discrepancies." This challenge underscores a broader push for greater electoral transparency, particularly concerning the methods used to revise voter lists and potentially disenfranchise citizens.

The Delhi Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has drawn considerable attention due to its substantial impact on the voter list. The draft electoral roll, published on August 31, 2026, revealed the removal of approximately 47.7 lakh names from an existing list of about 1.45 crore electors. During the enumeration phase, the Election Commission reported collecting and uploading forms for around 97.51 lakh electors. The process allows individuals whose names are missing from the draft roll to file claims for inclusion between August 31 and September 30, 2026, by submitting prescribed forms and supporting documents, with provisions for verification and hearings.

This revision process has not been without its complexities, as the Delhi SIR schedule has already undergone three revisions. The final electoral roll is slated for publication on November 4, 2026. This current scrutiny by the Supreme Court follows a previous decision in May, where a bench led by CJI Surya Kant upheld the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. In that verdict, the Court affirmed that the SIR process does not conflict with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its associated rules, instead stating that it "breathes life into the constitutional mandate under Article 324."

Lawyers should monitor the outcome of this case as it could establish precedents for challenging the transparency and due process of electoral roll revisions, particularly regarding the justification and disclosure of voter flagging criteria by election commissions. This ruling may provide grounds for challenging similar opaque administrative actions affecting fundamental rights in other jurisdictions.

Source: Original reporting via LiveLaw