Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri through advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi against Special Intensive Revision in Delhi.
Delhi started with 1,45,10,299 electors. Of them 47,56,722 were marked as not returned enumeration forms on grounds of being absent, shifted, dead or duplicate entries. That is 32.8 percent, or one in three voters deleted at draft stage.
Justice Bagchi said in open court, “First and foremost, in Bihar SIR, the ECI had not undertaken logical discrepancy as a category. We had permitted you in West Bengal as an interim arrangement. We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of logical discrepancy. You cannot touch these Forms. Form 6, Form 7 and Form 8 are cast in stone. You cannot make changes to them.”
Read more - The Vote Chori 'SIR'CUS
What is logical discrepancy? ECI software flags age gap between father and son less than 15 years, name spelling mismatch, gender mismatch, parent age illogical. In Bihar SIR, this category was not used. In West Bengal and Delhi, it was introduced as interim measure. Justice Bagchi asked how voters included in 2003 electoral roll after an intensive revision could be purged in 2026 in name of logical discrepancy.
Bhushan argued ECI approach was short sighted. Quote, "It ran like you were absent at your address when we came with enumeration form, you are deleted from electoral roll." Petitioners said ECI was compelling voters to misrepresent themselves as new applicants, an offence under Section 31 of Representation of People Act 1950 which attracts imprisonment up to one year.
ECI counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu cited residuary powers from Bihar SIR judgment May 27. Bagchi clarified Bihar judgment was not a binding precedent and asked why ECI had not used those residuary powers to reach out to non responsive voters rather than delete them.
CJI Kant asked practical questions. If a voter moved from Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar within Delhi, is it not enough to disclose voter details to continue in roll? If a person moved out for a month long assignment and missed enumeration, would he be considered permanently shifted?
Bagchi added structural incongruity. Form 6 and Form 7 requirement arises only after final voter list is published, not during draft stage. Why should deleted voters apply with Form 6, they can just put in enumeration forms belatedly. Keep it open ended. Dont stick to timelines for voters.
ECI said voters were never deleted as they could return anytime before filing of nominations. Court responded right to vote under Article 326 is constitutional right, not concession. Court said, “Let us say a voter was lax, inert, or did not respond, will that be a ground for you to forfeit his right to vote for ever? We will answer that.”
Read more - Dimagi Naxals' and the War Over Dissent
Context across India, petitioners claim nearly 13 crore voters disenfranchised. Karnataka final rolls released Tuesday showed only 4,54,55,689 electors against estimated eligible 5.19 crore per Technical Group on Population Projections 2020, shortfall about 64.5 lakh, 59.5 percent in 18 to 29 age group.
Implication is SIR meant to remove duplicates and dead, but using Al based logical discrepancy without personal hearing violates natural justice. Last date for claims and objections in Delhi is October 30. Court asked ECI to keep enumeration window open.
Tags: #SIR #SupremeCourt #ECI #DelhiVoters #Form6 #LogicalDiscrepancy #RightToVote #KarnatakaRolls #AnjaliBhardwaj