The Delhi High Court recently observed that the apprehension that homeless persons will be excluded from the draft electoral roll published after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the national capital appeared to be without any basis.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to establish a special facilitative mechanism for homeless persons and those displaced by demolition drives.
"Having considered the submissions on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the ECI, we are of the considered opinion that the Manual already provide process for determination of the ordinary residence in accordance with the Representation of People Act for homeless persons as per Clause 8.5 of the Manual. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the homeless persons shall be excluded from the Draft Electoral Roll appears to be without any basis," the Court said.
It added that any excluded elector remains free to file Form 6.
"The Manual clearly provides that once the details are provided by homeless persons in Form 6, the BLO will visit the address given therein for more than one night to ascertain that the homeless person actually sleeps at the given place,” the Bench observed.
The petition filed by one Indu Prakash Singh contended that the SIR exercise was structurally discriminatory because Booth Level Officers (BLOs) rely on addresses recorded in the last electoral roll, putting an estimated three lakh persons rendered homeless by demolitions since 2023 at the risk of exclusion.
It was argued this violated Article 326 of the Constitution and the ECI's own 2011 BLO Handbook, which recognises that homelessness is not a disqualification for enrolment.
The ECI countered that clause 8.5 of the manual permits homeless and pavement dwellers without documentary proof of residence to enrol, provided a BLO verifies their presence at the given address over more than one night, with an additional safeguard requiring a statement on the person's birthplace and prior residence.
It also cited the Supreme Court's February 23 order which had directed similarly placed persons to approach the District BLO rather than invoke Article 32.
After considering the case, the Bench found the petitioner's apprehensions "without any basis".
It noted that no specific instances or numbers of excluded persons were furnished.
Senior Advocate Satyakam with advocates Talha Abdul Rahman, Faizan Ahmad, Vibha Swaminathan, Sudhanshu Tewari and Rehan Ghalib Khan appeared for the petitioner.
ECI was represented by its Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha and advocates Siddhartha Goswami and Jasmine Morga.
Advocates Anuj Chaturvedi, Richa Dhawan, Yashita Jain and Sahil Bhaskar represented DUSIB.
[Read Judgment]