'How Can We Monitor?' Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On PIL To Include Homeless, Demolition-Displaced Persons In SIR

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved verdict in a PIL seeking directions to ensure the inclusion of homeless persons and those rendered homeless or displaced due to demolition drives in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the national capital.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia orally said that “everything cannot be thrust upon courts” and it will not monitor implementation of the policy.

The petition, filed by one Indu Prakash Singh, seeks formulation of a special facilitative mechanism for enrolment, transposition and retention of the names of such persons so that they are not excluded from the electoral rolls merely because they do not have a fixed residence.

According to the petition, the ongoing SIR exercise, which involves house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), creates difficulties for persons who have been rendered homeless or displaced.

It has been contended that such individuals may no longer be available at the addresses recorded in the electoral rolls, while those whose houses have been demolished may face difficulties in producing proof of residence or accessing the enumeration process.

Senior Advocate Satyakam appearing for Singh said that even though a representation was made to the authorities on July 10 which was acknowledged on July 13, nothing has been done on the ground to eliminate the grievances raised.

“Don't ask us to adjudicate reasons. That is for them to evolve a more effective way by which this exercise can be conducted. This petition is in the form of suggestions,” the Court remarked.

It added: “They have constitutional functions to perform within constitutional framework. It is for them to consider through their mechanism. The petition says do this in this way it will be more facilitative. That is for them to consider. Not for the court to consider.”

Satyakam said that the authorities have already issued the problems as back as on June 30, while citing a news report published in The Indian Express.

He said that now that the entire exercise has been over, nothing has been done by the authorities or no policy has been framed on the issue.

The counsel appearing for ECI submitted that appropriate policy and steps have been taken to address the issue relating to homeless individuals. He referred to Form 6 which a homeless person has to fill and provide proof that he or she is a resident of the shelter home and their date.

“As and when Form 6 is issued irrespective of displacement…, where there is an identity proof, some cases are there where there is no identifiable address, that is also called as default address. BLOs are duty bound and are checking, their enumeration form exists and connected to Form 6…. All that we see is that if a foreign national is not taken into account. Everyone is going to be accounted for. Homeless issue, we are cognizant since inception. Nonetheless if there are suggestions, the policy framework is robust and coherent…. Wherever these individuals are there, they are traced and they only have to show Form 6,” he said.

The Court told Satyakam that the petition only contains broad averments and do not indicate specific number or names of individuals affected or left out from the SIR exercise.

“The difficulty in trying these subject matters is that everything is based on perception that you have or the perception the person filing the petition has. So far as asking for praying to have a proper SOP to include such persons in SIR, whether or not it is implemented, how is it possible for court to monitor all this? Policy is there. SOP is there. And if you find any flaw in the implementation of the policy, will it be possible for the court to monitor all that?,” the Court said.

It added: “We won't monitor implementation of the policy. There is no vacuum in the policy. If they are not implementing, you should be able to point out that this many persons (are left out), then make a representation.”

Satyakam said that as many as 650 persons have been disenfranchised in the past, that lot of people will be excluded this time as well and that he was only being cautious by filing the petition.

“Everything should not be thrust upon courts. It is not that we don't share concerns,” the Court remarked.

Satyakam responded that an order be passed to the effect that the representation given to the authorities may be decided and liberty be granted to him to take further steps in accordance with law.

The Bench ultimately said that an appropriate order will be passed.

The petitioner claims that more than three lakh persons rendered homeless or displaced by demolition drives could be affected.

It has also been stated that the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi, had acknowledged that persons displaced due to demolition drives were “special cases” which would be dealt with separately. However, according to the PIL, no formal policy, notification or administrative mechanism has subsequently been put in place for their participation in the SIR exercise.

The plea contends that the absence of such a mechanism could result in indirect exclusion of eligible voters.

It has sought directions to the authorities to identify and enumerate homeless and demolition-affected persons likely to be affected by the SIR and to provide measures including relaxation of procedural requirements, field verification by BLOs and special enrolment camps.

It further seeks a dedicated grievance-redressal and assistance mechanism has to enable such electors to effectively participate in the SIR exercise.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Satyakam along with Advocates Talha Abdul Rahman, Faizan Ahmed, Vibha Swaminathan and Sudhanshu Tewari

Title: INDU PRAKASH v. GNCTD & ORS