Delhi SIR: Supreme Court flags mechanical notices by ECI; seeks clarity on logical discrepancies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea raising questions about the manner in which the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is being carried out in Delhi. 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter today and took note of concerns that the SIR notices issued to voters who were placed on the ‘doubtful’ list did not contain sufficient reasons or details. 

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi said that some SIR notices appear to have been mechanically issued. 

“Almost mechanically, notices are being issued. In all probability, they are machine-generated notices. So please examine whether some additional filters are necessary before the notices,” he observed. 

CJI Kant noted that there is scope to clarify what information was being sought from voters over ‘logical discrepancies’ marked against them in SIR notices. 

“That ‘logical discrepancies', you need to clarify this one. For example, notice can come to me. I shifted to Delhi in May 2019 after my elevation. Before that, I was voting in Chandigarh. Your logical discrepancy notice can ask me whether in 2019 I was voting in Delhi or in Chandigarh, or somewhere else. You might not be knowing that I was in Chandigarh. You can say ‘Delhi or somewhere else, clarify.’ So the person should be told what to clarify,” he said. 

He also flagged a need to sensitise Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to interact more with affected voters, for their benefit. 

“We are now suggesting, that the BLO should simply assist the person. They should reach out and tell them that, look, here your certificate, or maybe even in an old 2002 voter list, the name is mentioned,” suggested CJI Kant.

The Court added that the Election Commission of India (ECI) could come out with a list of frequently asked questions that voters may have about the process. 

“Maybe 10 to 15 queries or objections or questions. You can prepare a standard response to that and circulate to all of us. Something like an FAQ. Publish in newspapers, you can put it on websites, you can ask your municipality, you can ask your BLOs. And wherever the mobile numbers are there (of officers who could be contacted in case of further doubts), you can send it there. That even this much information will be sufficient. That will help the people enormously,” CJI Kant suggested. 

The Court proceeded to issue notice in the matter to formally seek the ECI’s response to the plea concerning the Delhi SIR.

“Issue notice. Let the response also indicate the immediate steps taken so far. List after two weeks,” the Court ordered. 

The Court also took note of the ECI’s submission that there is time to correct any lapses noticed in the Delhi SIR process, since the capital is not headed for any elections in the near future. 

“In Delhi, there are no elections in the near future now,” remarked CJI Kant. 

The petition before the Court particularly flagged concerns about “logical discrepancy” notices being issued to voters in Delhi amid the ongoing SIR. 

These notices flag inconsistencies noticed in a voter’s past records and, if unexplained, could risk the voter’s exclusion from the revised electoral roll. 

The plea said that there should disclosure of details of voters being issued such notices and the criteria used to flag voters as having records with “logical discrepancies.”

Representing the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan today argued that such notices are often bereft of proper reasons or the next steps that an affected voter has to take. 

“What is happening is glaring in the Delhi SIR. They are saying that they are issuing notices to 33 lakh people. There are daily wagers among these people. How many people can respond to these kinds of notices?” he said. 

He raised concerns that sufficient reasons were not being disclosed in such notices. He went on to cite an individual case of a senior lawyer’s domestic help being issued a “logical discrepancy” notice to express the difficulties being faced by voters who get issued such notices.

“Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi (Senior Advocate) called me to say that his house-help is not in the list. He has said that his household has gone in response to the notice. Mr. Ahmadi told me his household went there this morning. He told me. He was made to sit for three hours. Then he was told that the officer is not there,” Bhushan said. 

He also flagged practical difficulties in resolving some of the “logical discrepancies” flagged by the ECI. 

“Suppose the logical discrepancy that they say is that the age difference between you and your parents is less than 20 years. This is one of the logical discrepancies, 15 years or whatever. Now how am I supposed to respond? They are saying that you bring one of 12 documents. Those 12 documents don't contain anything regarding my parents. How will I go and show from those 12 documents why there is this age difference of less than 15 years between me and my parent?” asked Bhushan. 

He added that it may take years before affected voters get relief in such matters. 

Representing the ECI, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu termed the plea premature and assured that the poll body would be taking necessary steps to address the concerns flagged by the petitioner.

He further maintained that every SIR notice contains reasons for such notice.

“The reason is mentioned in every notice,” he said. 

Bhushan challenged this submission. He added that the notices do not disclose how a voter is expected to resolve logical discrepancies relating to age gaps between voters and their parents. 

“Suppose they say that the age difference between your grandparents and you is less than 40 years. This is one of the reasons which they are giving. Now, what do I take to show why the age difference is less than 40?” he asked.

Naidu replied that while the ECI calls on people to produce 12 documents to prove their entitlement to vote as a citizen, this list is not exhaustive.

“All that we want is, if there is some discrepancy raised, it can be clarified and it can be fulfilled. We have never insisted on mathematical proof,” he added. 

He also assured, 

“Not even a single voter will be deleted without hearing them.”

He added that the ECI is also scaling up the number of personnel who would carry out the SIR process. The submission was made in response to an argument by Bhushan that an affected voter was made to wait for hours when he appeared before the poll body in response to a logical discrepancy notice.

“Kindly have a look at my press note, where we have increased the manpower to take care of the pendency. Taking out an odd example would not serve the purpose or the system,” he submitted. 

Naidu went on to submit that the ECI notices also give information about which BLO may be approached if any affected voter has any queries. 

“We say in the notice, ‘In case of any difficulty or for further assistance, you may approach your Booth Level Officer, either in person.’ Name is given, mobile number is also given. Everything. That is also a facility,” he said. 

Bhushan contested this submission as well.

“They don't say any of this. They also say meet the officer. They don't tell the venue also where he has to meet. That's a great deal of harassment, unnecessarily,” Bhushan argued. 

The Court proceeded to observe that the ECI may have to take steps to get its officers explain in plain language to affected voters the information they may seek in connection with the SIR. In this regard, it suggested that an FAQ could also be formulated by the ECI. 

“Precisely. And therefore, we are holding camps, we are sensitising them. Locally we have asked BLOs... And we have time all the way when it comes to Delhi. It is not an election-bound one,” Naidu replied. 

Bhushan, meanwhile, questioned the manner in which some affected voters are being made to sign Form 6 for their inclusion to the revised list. 

“For shifted, there is a Form 8 (correction of details, including shifting of residence). They are saying, ‘No, no, this is SIR. We won't allow you Form 8. You fill up Form 6,’ in which you have to give a false declaration that I have never voted before. They are forcing people to make a false declaration,” he alleged. 

The ECI’s counsel, however, strongly denied this allegation, terming them unfounded and irresponsible. 

The case will be heard next after two weeks.

[Live Coverage]