We Haven't Finally Adjudicated On Legality Of Logical Discrepancy: Apex Court Remarks As It Asks ECI To Streamline Electoral Roll Inclusions In Delhi SIR

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) not to enforce strict cut-off dates for submitting forms and to continue welcoming both Form 6 and Form 8 filings, while hearing a plea against the deletion of names from the electoral roll under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Delhi.

The Court noted that the legality and mass application of the "logical discrepancy" category will be examined in greater detail at a later stage, clarifying that previous judgments (such as in Bihar) did not serve as a binding precedent on this specific issue.

The Court also asked the ECI to find ways to reduce the gap of the 43 lakh electors who were marked as permanently shifted or absent, including publishing lists at local booths so individuals can contact their nearest Booth Level Officer (BLO).

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana orally suggested that the ECI publish a list informing the 43 lakh individuals that we have been unable to contact them. The Court said that it should display where they were previously listed and explain that if they do not reach out, their names will be affected in the list; therefore, wherever they are currently residing, they should contact their nearest official and submit their enumeration form.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu appeared for the Election Commission of India

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the legality of the Logical Discrepancy category would be examined in greater detail later.

He asked how the 2003 roll could be reopened through Logical Discrepancy in respect of persons already on that roll, and stated that this might be done on a one-off basis but not as a mass exercise. He observed that the ECI had created patterns, and the Court would have to examine whether such creation amounted to application of mind by a human agency.

He clarified that the Bihar SIR judgment was not a binding precedent on this point, as LD had not been considered there, and that the interim permission given to the ECI in Bengal did not amount to a final decision on legality. He remarked that Delhi was an easier terrain for the ECI than larger States such as Maharashtra.

"We are only saying First, first and foremost, in Bihar, Mr. Naidu, the ECI had not undertaken logical discrepancy as a category...We have permitted you in Bengal as an interim arrangement. We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of logical discrepancy", he said.

Bhushan submitted that, of approximately 47 lakh electors not included, the ECI had itself shown about 43 lakh as permanently shifted or absent and about 2 lakh as deceased. He stated that he would leave aside the disputed figures and press the first category, in which 31.59 lakh electors were shown as permanently shifted. He further submitted that, as per the same press release, 33 lakh electors were identified by the system as “no mapping” cases, being those who could not be mapped to the 2002 SIR roll, and that 19.34 lakh were logical discrepancy cases. He pointed out that the ECI had never defined logical discrepancy in any document.

Chief Justice Kant said, "Delhi and for that purpose, any metropolitan, cosmopolitan, the bigger city, there is a lot of fluctuating population. They are laborers, they keep on working on contract basis, they are daily wagers and sometimes they are hawkers, these people keep on shifting their working places also, because it depends upon where they get some livelihood."

The Court asked why the burden should be placed on such electors to approach the authorities, when the ECI itself could reach out to them.

Bhushan submitted that, as per the ECI scheme, an elector who had shifted could not fill the enumeration form and was therefore bound to be deleted from the draft roll. Such an elector was then told to file Form 6, along with documents, during the claims and objections phase.

The CJI enquired about the requirements of Form 8 and observed that the information in Form 8 was sufficient for verification.

He added, "If a person wants to first time enroll himself or herself in Delhi, they will be required to fill up form six. There can't be any doubt. But if a person was a voter, say let us say in Vasant Kunj, and in the earlier voter's list, his name, her name is there in the Vasant Kunj voter's list, but now shifted to, let us say, in Sarita Vihar or anywhere, that voter will simply disclose that in the voter list of Vasant Kunj that booth number or whatever area, I am number so and so, so and so, now I have shifted here."

Justice Bagchi remarked that Form 6 required an elector to declare that his name was never on the roll, which was erroneous, and called for further particulars such as the father’s name, amounting to a de novo enquiry. If the 2003 roll were the cut-off, the exercise would be understandable, as every elector would be a new elector. However, if 2026 was the cut-off, a person who had shifted had to be permitted to respond in another manner.

He further noted that enumeration forms were issued from about 30 June to 1.45 crore electors over nearly one and a half months, of which 97 lakh responded and 47 lakh did not. The ECI had characterised the non-response in set categories. There could, however, be a residual category of electors who were never served. Such an elector could not be called “shifted”. A person who had gone out of Delhi for a month and returned after the enumeration period had closed would, under the ECI scheme, be forced to file Form 6. The ECI was asked to examine this structural gap.

Justice Bagchi observed that Forms 6, 7 and 8 were statutory and could not be altered by the ECI, although additional particulars could be sought. A declaration could be called for from a person making a claim or objection explaining why he had not responded earlier.

He noted that Rule 13 had not been followed and that the ECI’s contention was that the Rules did not govern the SIR process. He added that there must be application of mind as to why an elector who was given an enumeration form did not respond, and that the ECI’s list of reasons could be supplemented by a residual category.

Justice Bagchi remarked that the right to vote was a vital right and that the ECI’s work had to be done with due diligence. He asked whether a lapse by an elector in not filling the form would result in forfeiture of the right forever.

The Court said, "Don't go by any cut-off date as of now, because nothing is happening in Delhi. We understand that where a state election is taking place or something will have to be concluded in time-bound manner. So you continue to invite them. Issue some notices, public notices in newspaper, website, through online whatever modes you have, some websites that this is a continuing process, there is no cutoff date, people can anytime submit their Form 6 or Form 8."

The matter was adjourned for two weeks, granting the ECI time to consult, tweak its procedures, and report back on its updated mechanisms.

Previously, the Court issued notice in the plea and directed the ECI to file a status report in the matter.

On August 31, the Election Commission published a draft electoral roll under which 47 lakh voters were deleted from the list of 1.45 crore total voters. Around one in three voters in Delhi were removed from the draft electoral roll published as part of the Special Intensive Revision of the voter list.

The poll panel had said over 43.32 lakh were found to have shifted or were absent during the SIR, over 2.82 lakh voters were found to be deceased, while over 1.41 lakh were enrolled at multiple places.

While hearing the matter concerning the petition seeking directions against all decisions approved by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Chief Justice Surya Kant had also clarified that the modified Form 6 has not been approved by the Court.

It had also said that it had not adjudicated upon the new Form 6 while hearing the matter related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.

Cause Title: Anjali Bhardwaj v. Election Commission of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1188 / 2026]