The Supreme Court on 28 October asked the Election Commission to address concerns over the Special Intensive Revision of Delhi's electoral rolls and to devise ways of reaching about 47 lakh voters who were left out of the draft roll published on 31 August. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard a plea filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, argued by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan. The Commission told the court it would consider late enumeration forms and extend the 30 October deadline if needed. The court said it would take up the matter again after two weeks.
The argument that the court was right to press the Commission begins with the scale of the omissions. About 47.56 lakh electors were excluded from the draft roll under the category of absent, shifted, dead or duplicate entries, which by simple arithmetic is about one in three of the 1.45 crore voters on the earlier list. A further 33.13 lakh electors were flagged for notices, including 13.79 lakh for "no mapping" and 19.33 lakh for "logical discrepancies", a term the petitioners say is not defined. The court noted that the right to vote is vital and asked whether a voter could lose it for not responding. It also questioned why previously enrolled voters must file Form 6, which is meant for first-time enrolment, and suggested publishing a list of unreachable voters with their previous polling locations. It also asked the Commission to keep accepting Forms 6 and 8 and to issue public notices saying there is no cutoff date at this stage.
The argument for the Commission is that omission from a draft is not a final deletion. Senior advocate D S Naidu told the court that eligible people can still seek inclusion, and that the draft roll is a step in a process meant to clean the register of dead, shifted and duplicate entries. The Commission said it held awareness camps and deployed thousands of booth level officers, with booth level agents of political parties also assisting. The figures also show participation, since 97.53 lakh electors submitted enumeration forms. The Commission has already shown flexibility by agreeing to consider late forms, which suggests the process can adjust to the court's concerns without being halted.
The case matters because it concerns the basic act of voting in the national capital, and because the same exercise is under challenge elsewhere. A separate group of petitions by Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge and leaders of 11 other opposition parties, heard before Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi, challenges the Commission's handling of the revision more broadly and asks for it to be suspended in some states. How the court balances clean rolls against the risk of losing eligible voters will shape how the exercise is carried out in other states before the next elections.
For now the court has chosen to push the Commission to reach voters rather than halt the revision. The next hearing, due in about two weeks, will show whether those 47 lakh omissions shrink or whether the dispute grows.
Leave a Reply