The Delhi High Court reserved its order on a public interest litigation seeking measures to ensure that homeless persons and those displaced by demolition drives are not left out of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the plea and questioned whether the court could supervise the implementation of the electoral authorities’ policy.
During the hearing, the Bench made it clear that the court was not inclined to take over the administrative role of the authorities.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Indu Prakash Singh, who raised concerns about people who have no fixed residence or who have been forced to move after demolition drives.
The plea seeks a special mechanism for their enrolment, transposition and retention in electoral rolls. It also seeks measures such as field verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), special enrolment camps and a dedicated grievance-redressal system.
According to the petition, more than three lakh people rendered homeless or displaced by demolition drives could potentially face difficulties during the SIR exercise.
Senior Advocate Satyakam, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a representation had already been made to the authorities on July 10 and acknowledged on July 13, but the concerns remained unresolved.
He also referred to earlier instances where homeless persons were allegedly left out of electoral processes and argued that the petition was intended to prevent a similar situation during the present revision.
Election Commission's Response
Counsel appearing for the Election Commission said that the authorities were already conscious of the difficulties faced by homeless persons.
He referred to Form 6, through which an eligible person can seek inclusion in the electoral roll, and said that BLOs were required to undertake verification.
The counsel also submitted that the existing framework could deal with persons who did not have an identifiable address and that the authorities had taken steps to account for such voters.
According to the Election Commission, the policy framework was already in place and there was no administrative vacuum concerning homeless electors.
Court's Observation
The Bench questioned the petitioner on the absence of specific details showing how many persons had actually been left out of the SIR process.
The Court observed that the petition appeared to be based largely on concerns and perceptions rather than identified instances of exclusion.
“Everything cannot be thrust upon courts,” the Bench remarked while acknowledging that it shared the concerns raised in the petition.
The Court further said that the authorities have constitutional responsibilities to perform and that suggestions regarding the manner in which the electoral exercise should be conducted were primarily for the concerned authorities to consider.
The Bench also made it clear that it would not monitor the implementation of the policy.
“We won't monitor implementation of the policy. There is no vacuum in the policy,” the Court said, adding that if there were specific cases of people being left out, those instances could be brought before the authorities through appropriate representations.
Decision
After hearing the submissions, the Bench reserved the matter for orders. The Court said that an appropriate order would be passed on the plea.
