The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a special mechanism to ensure that homeless and demolition-affected persons are not left out of the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters in Delhi.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that an existing Election Commission of India (ECI) mechanism already provides for the enrolment of homeless persons, including those without documentary proof of residence.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Indu Prakash Singh, who raised concerns over the impact of demolition drives on the electoral registration of displaced and homeless persons.
The petitioner argued that the SIR process largely depended on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visiting addresses recorded in previous electoral rolls. According to the plea, people whose houses had been demolished could therefore be marked as shifted or absent, while persons without a fixed address could face difficulty proving ordinary residence.
The petition sought directions for special enrolment measures, field verification, special camps and grievance mechanisms for homeless and displaced voters. It also sought to challenge the ECI directions concerning preparation of the draft electoral roll.
The petitioner further relied on the difficulties allegedly faced by people living in temporary shelters, on pavements and in rehabilitation colonies. It was submitted that homelessness should not prevent an eligible citizen from being included in the electoral roll.
ECI's Stand Before the Court
The ECI opposed the need for a new mechanism, pointing to its March 2023 Manual on Electoral Rolls.
Clause 8.5 of the Manual specifically deals with homeless persons and pavement dwellers who do not possess documentary proof of ordinary residence. It provides that such persons can be enrolled if they are ordinarily residing at the place stated in Form 6.
The Manual further provides that a BLO may visit the stated location for more than one night to verify that the person actually sleeps there.
The ECI also informed the Court that homeless persons were already appearing in the draft electoral roll, with their house number shown as “0”. It further submitted that persons affected by demolition could approach the ECI or the concerned District BLO and seek inclusion by furnishing their new address through Form 6.
Court's Observation
The High Court found that the existing framework was sufficient to address the issue.
The Bench observed,
“the Manual already provide process for determination of the ordinary residence in accordance with the RP Act for homeless persons as per Clause 8.5 of the Manual.”
It therefore held that the petitioner's apprehension that homeless persons would be excluded from the draft electoral roll had no sufficient basis on the material placed before the Court.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had made general allegations regarding exclusion following demolition drives but had not provided particulars or numbers of persons who remained excluded from the electoral roll.
The Bench further pointed out that a person excluded because of demolition or relocation could use Form 6 for enrolment. Once the new details are provided, the BLO is required to visit the stated location for more than one night to verify the person's residence.
Decision
The Court concluded that there was no gap in the existing system because the mechanism for including homeless persons in the electoral rolls was already available and was being implemented by the ECI.
The Bench also relied on the draft electoral roll produced before it, which showed homeless persons with their names, photographs, age and gender, with “0” recorded as the house number.
Holding that the existing mechanism was adequate, the Delhi High Court declined to grant any of the prayers made in the PIL.
The petition was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Indu Prakash Singh v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11942/2026 & CM APPL. 55365/2026
Judge: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
