दिल्ली का SIR: सुप्रीम कोर्ट में निवेदन, ‘लॉजिकल डिस्क्रिपेन्सीज़’ वर्ग के मतदाता सूचनाओं एवं मानदंडों का खुलासा

The petition does not, at this stage, challenge the revision itself. It asks a narrower question: who are the voters that have been sent notices, and on what defined basis. The petitioners say lakhs of Delhi electors have been flagged under a category called ‘Logical Discrepancies’ that is nowhere defined, that their names have not been published, and that the notices state only generic grounds, leaving voters unable to know the case against their inclusion. The Court will hear it alongside other SIR matters.

New Delhi: A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking disclosure of the names of voters issued notices during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Delhi, together with the specific reasons for each notice and the criteria governing the classification of voters under the category of ‘Logical Discrepancies’ [Anjali Bharadwaj and Another v. Election Commission of India and Others].

The petition, filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who indicated that it would be taken up on Tuesday, when other SIR-related matters are also listed.

What the petition seeks

Filed under Article 32 and alleging violations of Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326, the petition seeks the publication of a consolidated, searchable list of all electors issued notices during the Delhi SIR, with their addresses and the specific reason or category for each notice. It further seeks disclosure of the official criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines by which voters are classified under ‘Logical Discrepancies’.

The petitioners ask that the authorities be directed to specify the precise discrepancy and the material facts forming the basis of each notice, so that voters can effectively participate in the hearing process, and seek to restrain the deletion of names from the rolls following proceedings based on notices that do not disclose the relevant particulars.

The numbers

According to the petition, the draft electoral roll published in Delhi on August 31 recorded 97,53,577 electors who had submitted their enumeration forms, while 47,56,722 electors were excluded from the draft roll under the category ASDD, standing for absent, shifted, dead or duplicate.

The petition states that a further 33,12,919 electors who were included in the draft roll were identified for the issuance of notices, of whom 13,79,785 were flagged as having ‘No Mapping’ and 19,33,134 were classified under ‘Logical Discrepancies’. The petitioners allege that the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer’s website disclosed only the numbers in these categories, not the names or details of the affected voters.

The transparency argument

The petitioners’ central contention is that the failure to publish the names of electors issued notices is contrary to the ECI’s own communication of May 14, 2026, which, on their reading, requires Electoral Registration Officers to issue notices to persons whose linkage with the previous roll could not be established or was found discrepant, and to publish lists of such persons on the CEO’s website and display them at local body offices.

They also rely on the Supreme Court’s order of January 19, 2026 in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, in which, in the West Bengal SIR, directions were issued for the publication of the names of persons issued notices citing logical discrepancies. The petition states that the ECI communicated that order to the West Bengal CEO and directed the display of such names, and points to Karnataka, where, it claims, constituency-wise and booth-wise lists of electors issued notices, with the reasons for discrepancy, were made available on the CEO’s website. Delhi, the petitioners say, has not done the same.

The ‘undefined’ category

At the heart of the petition is the contention that ‘Logical Discrepancies’ is undefined. The petitioners argue that the ECI’s May 14 communication prescribes no specific criteria or parameters for determining when an elector falls within the category, that the original SIR order of June 24, 2025 did not mention any such flagging or algorithmic process, and that no document specifying the definition and criteria has been placed on the Delhi CEO’s website.

The petition refers to a newspaper report describing 11 categories of logical discrepancies in the Delhi SIR, adding that the petitioners are unaware whether the same criteria are being used. It alleges that the notices served give only generic grounds, a name mismatch between the current roll and the previous SIR, for instance, without identifying the name recorded earlier or the relevant State and year, or a discrepancy in the names of parents or an age difference between grandparents and the elector, without details of the persons or records relied upon. Such omissions, the petitioners contend, make it difficult for electors to understand the allegations and defend their inclusion.

Why it matters

The petition is framed as a transparency and due-process challenge rather than an attack on the revision as such, and that framing is where its legal force lies. The right to be heard before an adverse action is meaningless if the person is not told the case against them; a notice that says only that there is a ‘discrepancy’, without naming the earlier record or the specific mismatch, leaves the voter with nothing concrete to answer. That is the gap the petition seeks to close, and it is a familiar administrative-law complaint: vague reasons and undisclosed criteria are hard to defend against and hard to review.

The petitioners’ strongest card is consistency. They point to a prior order of the Court in the West Bengal SIR requiring publication of names flagged for logical discrepancies, to the ECI’s own communication said to mandate such publication, and to Karnataka as a State where booth-wise lists with reasons were in fact made available. If those precedents are as stated, the question the Court will weigh is why Delhi should be treated differently. The ECI, when it responds, may contest the reading of its communications, explain the operational reasons for the current disclosure, or point to safeguards in the hearing process; its side is yet to be heard.

The scale is what gives the matter its charge. On the petition’s figures, more than 47 lakh electors were left out of the draft roll and another 33 lakh flagged for notices, in a single city, and the classification of nearly 19.5 lakh of them rests on a category the petitioners say is nowhere defined. Whether those numbers reflect a rigorous clean-up of the rolls or a process that risks disenfranchising genuine voters is precisely the kind of contested question that a court, rather than a news report, must resolve, and it will do so on the material both sides place before it. Nothing has been decided; the matter has only been listed.

Case Title: Anjali Bharadwaj and Another v. Election Commission of India and Others

Court: Supreme Court of India

Before: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (on mentioning)

Appearing: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners; petition drawn by Advocates Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri

Status: Writ petition filed and mentioned; listed to be heard on Tuesday with other SIR matters. No notice or interim order yet; the ECI’s response is awaited.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News