We are yet to decide on validity of logical discrepancy in SIR: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court orally said on Wednesday that it has not rendered any final decision on the validity of Election Commission of India (ECI) employing 'logical discrepancy' to weed out electors in its special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various States.

We have not adjudicated upon the legality of logical discrepancy list. We only allowed it as an interim measure in Bengal case. Remember it was not adjudicated upon in the Bihar SIR case

While the Court had earlier upheld the validity of SIR exercise in Bihar, the Court today said that the logical discrepancy issue was not decided in that matter.

The Court had later permitted ECI to employ 'logical discrepancy' prior to the West Bengal assembly polls but the same was only an interim measure and not a final decision, the apex court said today.

The remarks were made by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana after the ECI counsel argued today that the apex court has examined every step of SIR and upheld it.

"Ever since the SIR process was initiated, Your Lordships have been seized of the matter and have examined every step. Your Lordships may recall what happened in Bihar," the counsel said.

"Bihar is not a final determination of every question arising in these proceedings. In Bihar, the Election Commission had not initially undertaken logical discrepancy as a category. We permitted it as an interim arrangement in West Bengal. We have not finally adjudicated upon the legality of the logical discrepancy exercise," Justice Bagchi remarked.

However, he added that he will not make further comments given the sensitivity of the matter and how oral observations by court are often quoted san context.

"We do not wish to make further comments because observations in sensitive matters are sometimes taken out of context. These observations are not conclusive. There is a difficulty when judicial observations are repeatedly cited out of context as if every issue has already been decided," he said.

The Court was hearing a plea alleging a lack of transparency in notices issued to voters by election authorities in Delhi during the ongoing SIR in the national capital.

The plea was filed challenging the requirement that voters excluded from Delhi's draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) must declare themselves as first-time applicants to secure restoration of their names.

The application was moved by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and another petitioner in their pending petition against the Election Commission.

They have sought directions to provide a separate mechanism for restoring the names of previously enrolled voters.

The petitioners pointed out that 47,56,722 electors, constituting 32.78% of Delhi's electorate before the SIR, were excluded from the draft electoral rolls published on August 31.

Of these, 31,59,213 were classified as permanently shifted.

According to the application, these voters must submit Form 6 to seek re-inclusion, although the form requires applicants to declare that they are seeking enrolment for the first time.

The petitioners argued that this places previously enrolled voters in an untenable position, particularly because Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 makes knowingly false declarations punishable with imprisonment extending to one year, a fine, or both.

The Court after hearing the arguments asked ECI why voters already on the 2026 roll must file Form 6, which is meant for first-time voters.

"Those already on the 2026 roll who merely shifted residence should be allowed to use Form 8, not be made to declare they were never enrolled Temporary absence is not a shift of residence, Being away on work for a month or two does not make an elector 'permanently shifted'," the Court remarked.

The Court further observed that the ECI's procedure has no remedy for electors who never shifted but were never served the form.

Further, the Court said that since there are no upcoming elections in Delhi, the ECI need to rush through the process and keep short deadlines.

"Reach out, don't wait, Given Delhi's large floating population of labourers, hawkers and daily wagers, the burden should not fall entirely on them to approach the ECI," the Court said.

The Court also directed ECI to publicise everything including excluded names in both Hindi and English.

"Excluded names must be easily accessible, in simple Hindi and local languages, explaining the consequences of not responding," the bench said.

The ECI said it will consider accepting late enumeration forms and will extend the October 30 deadline if needed

[Read Live Coverage]