The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns over the process adopted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi. On Tuesday, a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana examined a plea questioning the issuance of SIR notices to voters marked ‘doubtful’ without adequate explanation.
Concerns Over Mechanical Notices
During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi expressed apprehension regarding the notices, noting that they appeared to be generated mechanically. “Notices are being issued almost mechanically, likely by machines. Please consider if additional filters are necessary before issuing these notices,” he remarked.
CJI Kant also highlighted the importance of clarity in the information requested from voters concerning ‘logical discrepancies’ in the SIR notices. He illustrated this with a personal example, explaining the need for clear communication regarding where voters were registered during previous elections.
Engagement with Voters and FAQs
The bench suggested that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) should engage more effectively with voters impacted by these notices. CJI Kant recommended that BLOs assist voters by providing necessary information, possibly referencing older voter lists.
To aid voter understanding, the Court advised the ECI to draft a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing common queries in the SIR process. “Publishing these in newspapers, on websites, and through other channels will significantly help voters,” suggested CJI Kant.
ECI’s Response and Future Hearings
Following these observations, the Court has issued a notice to the ECI, requesting a detailed response concerning the issues raised. The case is set to be revisited in two weeks, allowing time for the ECI to address these concerns.
The ECI’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, assured the Court that the body is addressing these issues and that reasons for issuing SIR notices are provided in each case. Naidu emphasized that no voter would be removed from the electoral roll without a hearing.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s Arguments
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that many notices lack sufficient reasons and that voters, including daily wage earners, struggle to respond. He cited examples where voters faced challenges due to alleged logical discrepancies, such as age gaps between voters and their parents.
More Read
Bhushan also criticized the requirement for certain documents to resolve these discrepancies, arguing that they do not always provide the necessary information. He expressed concerns about voters being compelled to sign Form 6 under false pretenses, a claim strongly denied by the ECI’s counsel.
The Court acknowledged the potential for the ECI to enhance communication and transparency with affected voters, suggesting the creation of an FAQ to improve understanding and reduce confusion.
The case will continue to be monitored, with the next hearing scheduled after two weeks.
