The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain a petition filed by residents of Lucknow whose names were removed from the electoral rolls after their homes were demolished, directing them instead to approach local election authorities.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said that entertaining such pleas directly under Article 32 would “open a Pandora’s box.”

“Having regard to the serious nature of disputed facts, we will not intervene under Article 32. The High Court can look into this,” the CJI observed.

The Court directed the petitioners to first approach Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and officials of the Election Commission of India. It further directed election officials to hear the grievances of the 91 petitioners and take remedial steps in accordance with law. If the petitioners remain dissatisfied, they have been given liberty to approach the High Court.

The petitioners are residents of Akbar Nagar in Lucknow, where their homes were demolished in September 2023 on the ground that the constructions were unauthorised. Following the demolition, they claimed their names were deleted from the voter list as they no longer had “identifiable addresses” due to the ongoing rehabilitation process.

Earlier, the matter had reached the High Court, which had directed the State to frame a rehabilitation policy for the affected residents. That decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate MR Shamshad told the Court that their names had been part of the electoral rolls since 2002 and were also included in the Special Summary Revision (SIR) conducted in 2025. He added that individuals born later were included in subsequent voter lists, and the petitioners’ names also appeared in the special SIR list.

The petitioners had sought permission to submit enumeration forms to BLOs to ensure their right to vote is protected despite the absence of a permanent address following the demolition drive.

Disposing of the plea, the Bench reiterated that it was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 and directed election authorities to address the petitioners’ grievances at the ground level