Still to decide legality of logical discrepancy: Supreme Court hears plea over voter deletions

Consider extending deadlines for submission of enumeration, claim and objection forms in Delhi: Bench to EC

Hearing petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, the Supreme Court Wednesday said it is yet to decide the constitutionality of including "logical discrepancy" as a ground to remove voters from the rolls, and that it was not an issue before it while upholding the legality of the Bihar SIR.

A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider allowing voters deleted from the draft electoral rolls in the Capital, who could not fill the enumeration forms, to submit the forms. The enumeration form submission deadline was August 17.

The bench said that such people should be allowed to continue to submit the enumeration form if they had only moved temporarily like being out of Delhi on official or personal engagement etc, or Form 8 if they had shifted residence to a different address within Delhi.

The ECI, on its part, agreed to look into the suggestion and assured orally that it will extend the October 30 deadline for submission of claim and objection forms.

The ECI had not mentioned "logical discrepancy" in its orders starting the SIR in Bihar on June 24, 2025 as well as the orders extended to other states on October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026. But as the SIR rolled out, the ECI deployed a centralised software to flag discrepancies on the basis of the electoral rolls and the documents submitted by the electors.

In the second phase of the SIR in nine states, including West Bengal, and three UTs, records from CEO offices showed that there were six categories, including those with six or more siblings, spelling mismatch with own name or parents' name in the documents and age gap of less than 15 years or more than 50 years between an elector and a parent. In the third phase, which was started in May this year, the categories were expanded to 11.

While hearing the plea by activists Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, when Senior Advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the ECI, referred to the Bihar SIR, Justice Bagchi said, "In Bihar SIR, we said there are certain residual powers of ECI and particularly in respect of embarking on Special Intensive Revision. So you can't tough Form 6. Form 6, 7, 8 are cast in stone. You cannot make any change in them. But yes, you can add to those forms."

He said that in the Delhi scenario, the Commission "could instead of asking for a form, have asked for a declaration by the person...(as to) why he did not respond to (enumeration form)."

Justice Bagchi said Bihar "cannot be a binding precedent because in Bihar, ECI had not undertaken logical discrepancy as a category. We have permitted you in West Bengal as an interim arrangement. We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of logical discrepancy."

"We do not want to make any further comments as these matters are so unnecessarily commented upon. These statements we make are not conclusive. There are difficulties in every sensitive matter where entire dialectics become strained due to out of context publication of judicial proceedings," he said.

He wondered how an entry in the 2003 list, drawn up after the then SIR, can be reopened citing logical discrepancy. "Your scheme is that in 2003, everything has been looked into in Special Intensive Revision. From 2003 to 2026, we have got summary revisions but not SIR. If that is so, a man in the 2003 list, how can this SIR reopen his entry on logical discrepancy?" Justice Bagchi said.

"What we are saying is a question which never fell for decision in the Bihar judgement, what we find is everyone shows the Bihar judgement and says everything is decided. You are arguing we have been under judicial review, so everything has been decided," he said.

Naidu said his reference to Bihar was that after that, as the SIR progressed, each state threw up its own challenges and the ECI devised ways to deal with those.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that a press note issued by the ECI Tuesday said "at the start of SIR, 1,45,10,299 no. of electors were enrolled in the electoral rolls of NCT of Delhi. 100% distribution of Enumeration Forms was achieved during this phase from 30.6.2026 to 17.8.2026. As on 17.8.2026, a total of 97,53,577 no. of electors submitted their Enumeration forms. 47,56,722 electors did not return the Enumeration forms on account of being Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate electors."

He said that out of 97,53,577 electors of the draft electoral roll, 19,34,243 electors were issued notice on ground of logical discrepancy identified by the system but "they have never defined in any document, anywhere what they consider logical discrepancy".

Naidu said it was already done in West Bengal.

Justice Bagchi told the ECI counsel, "What you have done is you have created patterns. We will have to examine whether creating patterns is an application of mind by a human agency. There was no application of mind by a human agency. We don't want to make any comment here... We would like to consider that issue. Bihar SIR never considered logical discrepancy."

"It was done for the first time in West Bengal. And because of the fact that there were some issues which we had already gone into, we had permitted you...That does not mean that we have finally decided on it," he said.

On the Delhi SIR, the CJI told Naidu that in a big city like Delhi, there will be a lot of fluctuating population which keeps shifting work places depending on where people get some livelihood. "Instead of putting the burden on them to approach you, you approach them," he said.

"When you say enumeration form has been given (to the voters), then you are presuming that the address which was mentioned last time the person is still residing there. But he is not," the CJI said.

Naidu said that if somebody shifts, the procedure is that the person has to inform so that the list will be updated. If the person does not, the records will show the old address.

The CJI said when it's election season e, people become active, and those who may have shifted residence will try to find out where their vote is. "But now when there are no elections and people are busy, don't expect that they will inform the authorities that they have shifted."

"Your one statement or circular in simple vernacular language and English can clarify that Form 6 needs to be filled up only by those who are first-time, want to register as voters in Delhi. Those who were in the list of 2026, and those who have not been able to fill up a form by virtue of the fact that they have either permanently or temporarily shifted...or, may be, were out of Delhi," the CJI said.

Justice Bagchi said that calling upon a voter who was in the rolls earlier but got deleted is an "error".

"You call upon him to fill a Form 6 declaring my name was never in the voter list, which is an error. You ask him for a further declaration, when were you born, where is your father, where is the connection etc etc. We understand your de novo enquiry. But if you are relating back only to 2003 (rolls prepared after the then SIR), this exercise is understandable, because you have erased all lists post 2003. So everyone is a new voter. So then, your Form 6 or whatever you are asking for should say my name is not included in the 2003 voters list. But if you take 2026 (voter roll) as your cut-off and someone has shifted, then you have to permit them Form 8," he said.

Posting the matter for hearing again after two weeks, the bench said it is not issuing any order to extend the October 30 deadline and expected the ECI to act on its own.

"Discuss with your authorities. Make sure how you continue to invite both Form 6 and Form 8. Don't go by any cut-off as of now. Nothing is taking place in Delhi. So you continue to invite them. Issue some public notice in newspapers, online etc that this is a continuing process, there is no cut-off date, people can anytime submit Form 6 or Form 8. In Form 6, whatever document they will attach, you can verify. In Form 8 also, you can verify the documents," the CJI said.

Naidu said, "In two weeks, whatever steps we take, we will come to Your Lordships. In the meanwhile, the time would also be extended. We will ensure that."