The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea seeking greater transparency in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, particularly over the non-disclosure of voters who have been served notices and the reasons for flagging their records.
The petition, filed by Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri through advocate Prashant Bhushan, alleges that the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer have not published the names of electors who received notices under categories such as “No Mapping” and “Logical Discrepancies”.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Thursday for urgent listing. Bhushan submitted that, in addition to around 47 lakh electors left out of the draft roll, notices have been issued to nearly 33 lakh voters. He also alleged that the notices served on electors do not adequately explain the basis on which their records have been flagged.
The Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be taken up on Tuesday along with other matters concerning the Delhi SIR.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition alleges violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21, as well as Articles 325 and 326.
The petitioners have sought publication of a consolidated and searchable database containing the names and addresses of all electors served notices, along with the precise reason for each notice. They have also sought disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational instructions used to identify records as involving “Logical Discrepancies”.
According to the petition, 97,53,577 electors who submitted enumeration forms were included in the draft roll published on August 31. A further 47,56,722 electors were excluded under the ASDD categories: Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate.
The petition states that 33,12,919 electors appearing in the draft roll were flagged for notices on account of either lack of mapping or alleged logical discrepancies. Of these, 13,79,785 were categorised as “No Mapping”, while 19,33,134 were placed under “Logical Discrepancies”.
The petitioners contend that the ECI’s May 14, 2026, communication requires lists of electors issued such notices to be published on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website and displayed at designated local offices.
They have also relied on the Supreme Court’s January 19, 2026, order in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, which contained directions concerning publication of names of persons issued notices on the ground of logical discrepancies during the West Bengal SIR.
A key challenge raised in the Delhi petition is that “Logical Discrepancies” has not been clearly defined. The petitioners claim that neither the May 14 communication nor the original SIR order dated June 24, 2025, sets out the parameters or methodology for assigning an elector to this category.
They further allege that notices citing issues such as mismatched names, discrepancies in parental details or differences involving age do not provide sufficient particulars to enable voters to identify the underlying record or effectively respond.
