'Apply Some Logic, SIR Notices Are Mechanical': Supreme Court Slams ECI Over 33 Lakh Delhi Voter Notices

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued notice to the Election Commission of India over the mechanical issuance of notices to over 33 lakh electors during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of Delhi voter lists. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana directed the election authority to file its first status report, emphasizing that machine-generated notices lacking specific reasons create confusion and place an undue burden on voters.

Hearing a public interest litigation filed by social activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, the court questioned the absence of clear operational criteria used by the poll body to flag voter records for "logical discrepancies".

Machine-Generated Notices Risk Voter Disfranchisement

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed during the proceedings that the Election Commission appears to be issuing notices automatically without manual verification filters. "Almost mechanically, notices are being issued. In all probability, they are machine-generated notices. So please examine whether some additional filters are necessary before sending them," Justice Bagchi remarked, suggesting that the poll panel publish a detailed Frequently Asked Questions guide to assist citizens.

Chief Justice Surya Kant pointed out that notices must explicitly convey what specific information an elector needs to provide. Illustrating the ambiguity, the Chief Justice noted that if a voter relocated from another city following a professional movement, the notice should clearly ask for clarification regarding past voting history in that specific city rather than issuing vague directions.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that over 33.13 lakh electors in Delhi received notices that fail to specify precise steps for compliance. He highlighted structural flaws in the process, citing instances where notices flagged an age gap of under 15 years between a voter and their parents, while the 12 prescribed identity documents required by the commission fail to offer any proof to resolve such family age gaps.

Election Commission Guarantees Hearing Before Any Deletion

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, defended the ongoing exercise and assured the bench that no voter would be deleted from the electoral roll without a fair hearing. The poll body informed the court that it deployed 14,000 Booth Level Officers and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers across Delhi to manage the verification drive ahead of the 29 October deadline.

Countering claims of administrative delays and procedural hurdles faced by citizens visiting electoral offices, Senior Advocate Naidu stated that the list of 12 acceptable documents is non-exhaustive and that the commission is not demanding mathematical precision. He added that additional manpower has been deployed to handle pendency and that every notice contains basic contact information for designated local booth officers.

The petitioners raised further concerns regarding electors marked under the "shifted" category, alleging that voters are being turned away from submitting standard residence correction forms and forced to sign declarations meant for first-time voters. The counsel for the poll body strongly refuted these allegations, terming them baseless. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing in two weeks following the submission of the initial status report.