SIR in Delhi: Supreme Court says notices seem ‘mechanical’, seeks ECI’s response

The bench, presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising Justice V Mohana, was hearing a petition by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri that stated that the ECI and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer had failed to adequately disclose the names deleted from the electoral roll, apart from those issued notices for logical discrepancy and the reasons for the same.

The bench also issued a notice to the ECI on the plea and sought a status report.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said it is shocking that notices have been issued to more than 33 lakh voters due to reasons including “logical discrepancy”.

More than 47 lakh names have already been deleted from the draft electoral rolls during the ongoing exercise in the Capital covering more than 97 lakh voters. Former deputy prime minister L K Advani, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, former vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar and Election Commissioner S S Sandhu, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, former JNU vice-chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar, former Delhi lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung, former NITI Aayog vice-chairman Arvind Panagariya, SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey, former Army chief Upendra Dwevedi, CBI Director Praveen Sood and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal are among prominent voters who have received or are likely to receive notices.

“You need to clarify ‘logical discrepancy’ a little,” the SC bench told senior advocate D S Naidu, who appeared for the poll body.

The CJI said, “For example, notice can come to me. I shifted to Delhi in May 2019 after my elevation. Before that, I was voting in Chandigarh. Your logical discrepancy notice can ask me whether in 2019 I was voting in Delhi or in Chandigarh, or somewhere else. You might not be knowing that I was in Chandigarh. You can say ‘Delhi or somewhere else, clarify.’ So the person should be told what to clarify”.
Bhushan said that the “problem is if you receive a notice, you are supposed to go with documents”. He added that sometimes, the documents listed by the ECI may not be capable of refuting the discrepancies.

Meanwhile, Naidu said every notice mentioned the reason for issuing them while referring to some sample notices.

The CJI, while noting that the notices did mention the reasons, asked Naidu what information would be sufficient for an elector to answer the questions. Naidu, in his response, said the 12 documents referred to in the notices were not exhaustive.

Bhushan, on the other hand, asked why someone who has already submitted an enumeration form and produced proof of age and residence should produce more material.

CJI Kant said it could be because Delhi has a large migrant population. “In Delhi, problem would be unique. Vast population would be of original Delhiites. But a person like my brother, my sister…we are coming here…we are migrant workers here. I will have to tell I was in Chandigarh, now I am in Delhi. It will ensure there is no double vote,” he said.

As Justice Mohana said, “we have also come across a situation where Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are not available”, senior advocate Sibal said he has contested elections in Delhi and know that the city has many multi-storey buildings without elevators and that it would be far-fetched to say that the BLOs would not visit each and every house.

Taking note, as Justice Bagchi asked Naidu how many BLOs have been deployed for the SIR exercise in the Capital, the latter said: 14,000 BLOs and 1,200 Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

Justice Bagchi also noted that if BLOs are stationed at ward offices, electors can approach them directly. Naidu said this had been done, adding that the poll body is also willing to extend the October 29 deadline, if necessary.

The CJI, also stating that there can be some orientation to boost electors’ confidence, said: “… there are 15-20 types of queries/objections. You can prepare a standard response to that and circulate to all…”