The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) response to a plea challenging the manner in which the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is being carried out in Delhi.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana took note of concerns over notices being issued to voters flagged for “logical discrepancies”.

Justice Bagchi observed that some of the notices appeared to have been issued mechanically and asked the ECI to consider whether additional checks were needed before sending them to voters.

CJI Surya Kant also said voters should be clearly told what information they need to provide when a “logical discrepancy” is found in their records.

The Court suggested that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) should actively assist voters and explain what documents or information they may need to resolve such issues.

It also suggested that the ECI prepare a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the SIR process and make it available through newspapers, websites, local authorities and BLOs.

The Court then issued notice to the ECI and asked it to inform the Court about the steps taken so far. The matter will be heard again after two weeks.

The plea has raised concerns over “logical discrepancy” notices being issued to voters in Delhi. Such notices point out inconsistencies in a voter’s previous records, which may affect their inclusion in the revised electoral roll if the discrepancies are not explained.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that many notices do not clearly explain the reason for the discrepancy or what the voter needs to do next.

He also raised concerns about the difficulties faced by daily-wage workers and other voters in responding to such notices.

Bhushan cited examples of voters allegedly being made to wait for hours while trying to meet officials. He also questioned how voters could explain discrepancies involving the age difference between them and their parents or grandparents when the documents suggested by the ECI may not contain such information.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, said the plea was premature and maintained that reasons are mentioned in the notices.

He said voters are not required to provide mathematical proof to explain discrepancies and that the list of documents mentioned by the ECI is not exhaustive.

Naidu also assured the Court that no voter would be deleted without being given an opportunity to be heard. He said the ECI was increasing manpower and holding camps to help voters with the SIR process.

The ECI counsel also said that the notices provide details of the concerned BLO, including their name and mobile number, for further assistance.

Bhushan disputed this and alleged that some voters were not being given proper information about where they should approach the authorities.

He also raised concerns over voters allegedly being asked to submit Form 6 instead of Form 8 in cases involving a change of residence. According to him, this could require voters to make declarations that they had never voted before.

The ECI denied the allegation and termed it unfounded.

The Court noted the ECI’s submission that there is sufficient time to address any issues in the Delhi SIR process as no election is due in the national capital in the immediate future.

The case will be heard again after two weeks.