Delhi SIR | SC asks ECI to make ‘logical discrepancy’ notices clearer

Voters asked to explain discrepancies in old electoral records

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan said the notices did not tell voters what they needed to clarify. Justice Bagchi observed, “Almost mechanically notices are being issued. In all probability, they are machine-generated notices. So please examine whether some additional filters are necessary before the notices.” Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the ECI, said they would examine the grievances and maintained that every notice contained the reason for which it had been issued. The CJI gave the example of a person who had moved to Delhi in 2019 after being elevated to the Bench, having earlier voted in Chandigarh. “You can say Delhi or somewhere else, clarify. So the person should be told what to clarify,” he said.

This concern had already surfaced during the West Bengal SIR, where 1.36 crore voters were affected by the logical discrepancy process. Justice Bagchi had questioned the software generating the notices, and had observed that “the ground reality is that with the application of software the notices are being sent on a wider basis”, calling the tools “very restrictive”. Bhushan said the discrepancies created practical difficulties in Delhi, particularly where notices flagged age differences between voters and their parents or siblings. “Now how am I supposed to respond?” he asked, pointing out that the 12 documents listed by the ECI did not necessarily contain information needed to explain such discrepancies.

ECI said voters could produce other material

Naidu said the 12 documents listed by the ECI were not exhaustive. “Whatever convincing source they have, that can be placed before the authority. It is not exhaustive,” he said. When the CJI asked what could establish an age discrepancy, he suggested that “maybe the birth certificate of the sibling is sufficient”. The Bihar SIR judgement had recorded that the ECI had progressively expanded the documents it would accept during the exercise. It held that the draft roll was “by design, provisional” and that non-inclusion at that stage did not amount to final deletion.

“Not even a single voter will be deleted without hearing them,” Naidu said. Bhushan, however, pointed to the difficulties voters faced in responding to the notices. “What is happening is glaring in the Delhi SIR. They are saying that they are issuing notices to 33 lakh people. There are daily wagers among these people. How many people can respond to these kinds of notices?” he asked. Naidu said the ECI had increased its manpower and that “taking out an odd example would not serve the purpose or the system”.

Court asks ECI to assist voters through BLOs

Bhushan questioned whether Booth Level Officers (BLOs) could reach voters in Delhi, pointing to five-storey buildings without lifts. The CJI suggested making BLOs available at ward offices. Naidu said the notices carried the name and mobile number of the concerned BLO, but Bhushan said some did not specify where the officer could be met. The CJI said BLOs should be able to explain in plain language what information would satisfy a notice. “Maybe they require a little bit of orientation, in the sense that how to inspire confidence and how to explain in plain language to the affected person what kind of information will be sufficient to satisfy,” he said.

Naidu said the ECI was holding camps and sensitising BLOs. The CJI suggested a standard response to the questions voters were likely to have. “Maybe 10 to 15 queries or objections or questions. You can prepare a standard response to that and circulate to all of us. Something like an FAQ,” he said. He suggested putting it in newspapers, on websites, through municipalities and with BLOs. “That will help the people enormously,” he said.

The question of how voters would navigate the LD process had arisen in West Bengal too. Around 80 lakh LD cases required verification there, with 250 District and Additional District Judges assigned to about 50 lakh claims. The Court estimated that the exercise could take around 80 days and suggested bringing in judicial officers from Orissa and Jharkhand.

Aadhaar and the burden on existing voters

Bhushan questioned the documentary requirements for voters already on the electoral roll, saying many poorer voters had little beyond Aadhaar. “At least in some states, most people, other than having the Aadhaar card, they don’t have the other documents,” he said.

Aadhaar had come up during the Bihar SIR hearings too. In September 2025, the Court directed the ECI to treat Aadhaar as the 12th document for establishing identity, subject to verification of its authenticity and genuineness. It made clear that Aadhaar was not proof of citizenship. Further, the judgement directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar as a valid identity document under Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, while excluding it as proof of citizenship. The issue surfaced again in the West Bengal hearings. In February, Justice Bagchi said, “Aadhaar was brought in as a document to act as an identity proof…we have to acknowledge that. There is no question of citizenship being canvassed on Aadhaar.”

Form 6 dispute over ‘shifted’ voters

Bhushan raised the treatment of voters marked as “shifted”. Form 8 is used by an existing voter to report a change of residence, while Form 6 is the application for inclusion in the electoral roll. Bhushan said voters marked as shifted were being denied Form 8 and asked to submit Form 6 instead. He said this required existing voters to declare that they had never voted before, effectively forcing them to make a false declaration. However, Naidu rejected the allegation as “unfounded, wild allegations.” He said the declaration requirement followed an amendment to Section 31 and required applicants to vouch for the accuracy of the information they provided.

The Bench issued notice and asked the ECI to indicate the immediate steps taken so far. The matter has been listed after two weeks.