SC Asks EC To Reach 47 L Excluded Delhi Voters

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission (EC) to devise a mechanism to reach out to nearly 47 lakh Delhi voters whose names were omitted from the draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), observing that the right to vote could not be forfeited merely because a voter was absent during enumeration.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana questioned why previously enrolled voters were being asked to submit Form 6, meant for fresh enrolment, to restore their names to the rolls.

The court suggested that the EC continue accepting enumeration forms from affected voters, consider extending the October 30 deadline and publicise the procedure for seeking inclusion.

It also suggested publishing lists of voters whom officials had been unable to contact, along with details of their previous polling locations, to enable them to approach the nearest booth-level officer (BLO).

"You see how to reduce this gap of 43 lakh," the CJI observed, referring to voters identified as shifted or absent.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, who sought publication of the names of electors issued notices during the SIR, along with the reasons.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that approximately 47 lakh names had been omitted from the draft rolls, against a pre-revision electorate of around 1.45 crore.

The court questioned the requirement for existing voters to seek fresh enrolment when they had not permanently shifted from their registered addresses.

"The right to vote is a vital right. Your job is to act with due diligence," Justice Bagchi observed.

He questioned whether a voter who had missed the enumeration exercise could permanently lose the opportunity to seek inclusion.

The CJI noted that people frequently moved within metropolitan cities such as Delhi for employment and other reasons, and that officials should make efforts to contact them rather than placing the entire burden on voters.

"Instead of burdening them that they will approach, why don't you reach out to them?" he asked.

Senior advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the EC, submitted that omission from the draft rolls did not amount to final deletion and that eligible voters could still seek inclusion.

The EC told the court it would consider accepting late enumeration forms and extending the October 30 deadline if necessary.

The bench also clarified that it had not finally adjudicated the legality of the EC's use of the "logical discrepancy" category to identify inconsistencies in voter records.

Justice Bagchi said earlier directions relating to Bihar and West Bengal did not amount to a final determination of every question concerning the revision exercise.

The court sought further consideration of measures to contact affected voters and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.

SC sets Nov. 30 deadline for CAPF cadre review

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Centre had violated its earlier direction to conduct a cadre review of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and directed the review committee to submit its proposal for approval by November 30.

A bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and Ujjal Bhuyan also sought details of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers serving on deputation in five CAPFs — the BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP and SSB — up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), equivalent to the rank of inspector general.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the CAPFs had submitted their cadre review proposals, which were being examined by the Cadre Review Committee.

She assured the bench that the committee would submit its proposal for approval by November 30.

The court directed the Centre to file an affidavit detailing IPS deputations in each force as on May 23, 2025, and the current position. It also sought details of the cadre review proposal and posted the matter for further hearing on December 9.

The bench was hearing petitions challenging the new CAPF Act, along with a contempt plea filed by CAPF officers alleging non-compliance with its May 23, 2025, judgment.

The petitioners contended that cadre reviews, due since 2021, had not been completed within the six-month period stipulated by the court.

After examining the original files, the bench observed, "We see that they are in violation of the direction for cadre review and we will ask them to give an undertaking and give them a specified timeframe for compliance."

Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that IPS deputations had increased despite the court's direction to gradually reduce them.

Bhati submitted that of 13,491 Group A posts in the five CAPFs, 213 were sanctioned for IPS deputation, while IPS officers currently occupied 129 posts.

The bench clarified that its earlier judgment had not required the government to eliminate IPS deputations but to reduce them gradually.

Justice Mishra said the court needed figures from the date of its earlier judgment to determine whether the direction had been implemented in letter and spirit.

The court had earlier directed the home ministry to produce original records relating to cadre review proposals to examine compliance with its order.