The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to urgently hear a fresh challenge to the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of Delhi’s electoral rolls, with the petition questioning why the names of nearly 3.31 million voters issued notices for “logical discrepancies” or lack of mapping have not been made public, and what precisely triggered those notices.
“They have not disclosed the names of people which is why some people get notices and some do not. They have also not disclosed the basis of putting them under the logical discrepancy category,” Bhushan contended. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said the plea would be taken up on September 22 along with other SIR matters already pending before the court, while giving the fresh petition precedence. The petition, filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri through advocate Prashant Bhushan, comes against the backdrop of the exclusion of 4.76 million names from Delhi’s draft electoral roll published on August 31.
Mentioning the matter before the CJI, Bhushan said the exclusion of over 4.7 million voters was only one part of the exercise, with the authorities now proposing to issue notices to another 3.3 million voters whose names figure in the draft roll but have been flagged under the categories of “no mapping” and “logical discrepancies”. The CJI said the matter would be heard on Tuesday, September 22, when other SIR-related cases are also listed, adding that the fresh plea “will certainly have precedence” as it was a new matter.
The petition, filed through advocates Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri, has sought publication of a consolidated and searchable list of all electors issued notices, along with their addresses and the precise reason or category for each notice. The communication also requires publication of the names of persons issued such notices on the chief electoral officer’s website and display at relevant local offices, the petition states. Other flagged anomalies include unusually small or large age gaps between an elector and a parent and unusually short gaps between the birth dates of siblings. The authorities have maintained that receiving a notice does not, by itself, mean that a voter has been declared ineligible.
The challenge under Article 32 alleges that the failure of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Delhi chief electoral officer (CEO) to publish the names of voters issued notices, along with the specific reasons for issuing them, violates their constitutional and fundamental rights. The plea has also relied on ECI’s May 14, 2026 communication, which, according to the petition, requires electoral registration officers to issue notices where an elector could not be linked to the previous roll or where the linkage was found to contain discrepancies. The claims and objections process is scheduled to continue until September 30, with disposal of notices expected by October 29 and publication of the final electoral roll on November 4.
The Delhi exercise has therefore generated a second layer of scrutiny beyond the names excluded from the draft roll.
It has also sought disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines used to classify voters under “logical discrepancies”. Officials have said “logical discrepancies” broadly concern inconsistencies in electoral database records, including different spellings of names in the current and 2002 rolls.
Such voters will have an opportunity to respond and furnish documents or clarifications before the final roll is prepared.
The exclusions were made under the Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) category. The petitioners’ grievance is not merely about the existence of these categories but the information supplied to voters facing scrutiny. Of the 4,756,722 names excluded from the draft roll, Delhi CEO data shows that 57.2% were men and 42.8% women. Separately, there are 3,312,919 voters whose names have remained in the draft roll but have been flagged for possible discrepancies.
Because the draft roll published on August 31 contains 9,753,577 electors — around 32.8% fewer than the 14,510,299 names on Delhi’s rolls before the revision, the issue assumes significance.
Of these, 1,379,785 have been categorised as having “no mapping” with the 2002 electoral roll, while 1,933,134 have been classified under “logical discrepancies”. They contend that “logical discrepancies” has not been defined and that neither the original SIR order nor subsequent Election Commission communications placed on the Delhi CEO’s website specify the criteria or parameters by which a voter is placed in this category. Notices issued to voters contain only generic descriptions of the alleged discrepancy without identifying the underlying material that would enable an elector to understand and respond to it, according to the petition.
