4 min readFeb 24, 2026 04:25 AM IST
First published on: Feb 23, 2026 at 05:52 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the district election officer of Lucknow to look into the grievance of a group of 91 residents, who claimed that they were excluded from the voters’ list after the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) on the ground that they did not have an “identifiable address.”
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners, who said they were former residents of the now-demolished Akbar Nagar area in the city, to approach the Allahabad High Court if their concerns are not redressed.
“We direct the District Election Commissioner, Lucknow, to ascertain the facts of the case and take a decision as per the law. If the petitioner’s grievance is not addressed effectively, they may approach the jurisdictional High Court,” the SC ordered.
‘Displaced’ from residing area: petitioners
The petitioners pointed out in their plea that they were displaced from Akbar Nagar, following the eviction drive, which was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. They said that after their displacement from Akbar Nagar, where they had been residing till 2024-2025, they, along with many others similarly placed, were shifted and allotted dwelling units in the Vasant Kunj area, outside Lucknow City.
“In this process, the petitioners’ electoral constituency has changed,” they said, adding that ever since, their “status as existing electors/voters” has been “completely ignored”.
The petitioners said they have been seeking to complete the enumeration form, followed by Form 8 to change their address, but election officials have been insisting that they complete Form 6 and enrol as new voters.
They said that the “filling of Form – 6 shall create multiple issues, including the fact that their declaration shall be contrary to the record as they already exist in the Electoral Rolls. Secondly, if they fill Form – 6, it shall be against Rule 13(3) of the Rules of 1960.”
They also contended that they “feel that this is being done by design to show/reflect electors belonging to a particular community as ‘new electors’ to be later categorised as ‘D-Voter’ or ‘Ineligible Voters’ and finally brand them ‘non-citizens’ or infiltrators.”
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate M R Shamshad said that his clients’ names figured in the electoral rolls, and they were issued EPIC numbers and voter ID card numbers.
The bench initially asked why they could not approach the High Court in the matter. “Why can these issues not be taken to the High Court?… We cannot understand that,” said the CJI.
Shamshad said this is one case that has come to light, and that he has a list of about 15 such instances across the country. “They are poor people, they have been relocated from one place to another place.”
However, the bench said the matter will require a factual inquiry, for which the HC is best suited. “We are only on the question of factual enquiry…for factual enquiry, you can go to the High Court”, the CJI said.
The court in its order said the matter involved “seriously disputed” questions of fact which would require a detailed evidence-based review, and that the state authorities will be better equipped to do this.
The petitioners pointed out in their plea that they were displaced from Lucknow's Akbar Nagar, following the eviction drive, which was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. (Express File Photo) 
Share
