New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to display the names of voters placed under the “logical discrepancies” category at gram panchayat bhavans, block offices and other public locations, enabling affected electors to submit documents and raise objections during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The direction applies to states and Union Territories where the second phase of the SIR is currently underway. These include Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, along with Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Puducherry. The first phase of the exercise has already been completed in Bihar.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the Election Commission had issued notices under three classifications—mapped, unmapped and logical discrepancy. The court clarified that voters listed under the logical discrepancy category must be given a fair opportunity to verify and correct their records.
The Bench had earlier passed similar directions on January 19 while hearing petitions related to the SIR process in West Bengal. In the present proceedings, the court also reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions, including one filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which challenges the legality of the SIR exercise conducted in Bihar.
The Supreme Court is examining whether the Election Commission possesses the authority under Article 326 of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the rules framed under it to undertake such a large-scale revision of electoral rolls.
Thursday’s order followed submissions by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the DMK, who argued that voters in Tamil Nadu placed in the logical discrepancy list were not being granted adequate time or opportunity to seek inclusion in the rolls ahead of elections. The petitioners alleged procedural lapses and arbitrariness in the conduct of the SIR exercise, particularly in relation to the logical discrepancy category.
The court observed that discrepancies flagged by the authorities included mismatches in a voter’s father’s name, inconsistencies in parents’ ages, unusually large gaps in generational ages and records indicating more than six children. Taking note of these issues, the Bench ordered that the names of such voters be displayed prominently at gram panchayat offices in rural areas, public places at the taluka level and ward offices in urban regions to ensure transparency and access.
