Delhi SIR | SC says legality of ‘Logical Discrepancy’ remains undecided

Why must shifted voters apply afresh?

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that 47 lakh persons from the 1.45 crore electors in Delhi had not returned their enumeration forms. 43 lakh of these had been classified as permanently shifted or absent—31.59 lakh as permanently shifted and 11 lakhs as untraceable. Bhushan said many voters had never received their enumeration forms, which carried their previous addresses. Those who had moved could not complete the process at their new addresses, while the ECI required them to file Form 6 rather than Form 8. Form 8 allows an existing elector to report a change of residence, whereas Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. Bhushan argued that requiring existing voters to use Form 6 forced them to declare that they had never been enrolled before. He asked the ECI to allow voters to submit their enumeration forms even now and use Form 8 to report changes of address.

The CJI questioned why the ECI expected voters to approach it when its own process might have prevented them from being reached. “Instead of burdening them to approach you, why don’t you reach out to them?” he asked, adding that failure to return a form sent to an old address did not establish that an elector had permanently shifted.

Justice Bagchi questioned why voters already on the latest electoral roll had to file Form 6, which requires applicants to declare that they had never been enrolled before. For an existing voter who had merely moved within Delhi, the appropriate form was Form 8, which allows electors to update their address. The CJI gave an example of this with a voter moving from Vasant Kunj to Sarita Vihar, they could identify their existing entry and report the change through Form 8. Form 6, he said, was for those seeking enrolment in Delhi for the first time.

Court asks ECI to trace missing electors

The Bench asked how the ECI would alert voters whose names were missing from the draft roll. Bhushan suggested displaying lists of affected electors at polling booths. The CJI asked the ECI to publish the names of electors it had been unable to contact, along with details of their previous electoral entries, and direct them to their nearest Booth Level Officer (BLO).

Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the process remained open and electors could still approach the authorities for inclusion. He referred to the FAQs and awareness camps organised by the ECI. The CJI, however, asked how voters who had not received their forms or did not know their names had been flagged would find out. He observed that people tended to pay more attention to electoral registration during elections and asked how they were expected to report a change of residence when there was no imminent election.

Justice Bagchi said non-response could not, by itself, establish that an elector had shifted. Some voters might have been away temporarily, while others might never have received the form. The Bench asked the ECI to clarify publicly that Forms 6 and 8 remained available for electors to approach the authorities. Justice Bagchi also suggested that voters be allowed to submit their enumeration forms rather than being required to file Form 6.

Justice Bagchi: Court has not ruled on legality of LD category

Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court had not ruled on the legality of the Logical Discrepancy (LD) category, adding that its use had been permitted only as an interim arrangement in the West Bengal proceedings. The Bihar SIR judgement had not examined the issue. Bhushan told the Court that the ECI had identified around 33 lakh electors whose details could not be mapped to the previous revision and 19.34 lakh cases under the LD category. He argued that the ECI had not clearly explained the criteria used to identify these discrepancies. On the last day the Court had asked the ECI to examine whether “additional filters” were needed before issuing notices for LD, observing that such were being issued “mechanically”.

Justice Bagchi questioned how the ECI could reopen entries of electors already on the 2003 roll based on patterns identified by its system. He said that the Court would have to examine whether the process involved application of mind by a human agency and whether an existing entry could be reopened under the LD category. The Bench asked the ECI to address the gap between the number of electors and those who had returned their enumeration forms, and to reach voters it had been unable to contact.

The matter is listed after two weeks.