'Logical Discrepancy' Category Allowed In Bengal SIR As Interim Arrangement, It's Legality Yet To Be Decided : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally commented that it is yet to adjudicate on the validity of the "Logical Discrepancy(LD)" category being used by the Election Commission of India in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of electoral rolls. The Court further said that it allowed the use of this category in West Bengal as an "interim arrangement".

The Court further clarified that its Bihar SIR judgment cannot be seen as an endorsement of the "Logical Discrepancy" category, as it was not used in Bihar.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was part of a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana, made these remarks while hearing petitions concerning the Delhi SIR.

The petitioners are questioning the inclusion of voters in this category. In the SIR of electoral rolls, Logical Discrepancy (LD) is a category used by the ECI to flag voter records that contain inconsistencies or apparent anomalies and require further verification. Unlike “unmapped” voters, whose details cannot be linked to the previous intensive revision of electoral rolls, LD cases generally involve voters whose records have been linked but contain details that the ECI considers inconsistent

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed :

"Bihar SIR is not a binding precedent. There, the ECI had not undertaken Logical Discrepancy as a category. We have permitted you in Bengal as an interim arrangement. We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of Logical Discrepancy. We don't want to make further comment."

Justice Bagchi further asked how a person, who was included in the 2003 roll, be now be categorised as LD.

"A man in the 2003 list - how can this SIR reopen his entry on LD? A question which never fell for question in Bihar judgment [...]."

During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioners, submitted that 19.34 voters in Delhi have been marked as LD by the ECI. He submitted that the ECI has not defined what they consider "Logical Discrepancy."

Justice Bagchi said, "The legality of Logical Discrepancy we will go into greater detail later on."

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, for the ECI, submitted that 95% of those persons have been restored.

Justice Bagchi then observed: "You have considered 2003 as the cutoff. How do you reopen a electoral roll of 2003? You can do it on a one-off basis. You have power, but as en masse exercise, your mapping from 2003 is understood, but what about Logical Discrepancy of people already in 2003 list?"

Naidu submitted that in the West Bengal case, the logical discrepancies were "logical".

"It does not matter.  You have created patterns. We have to examine whether creating of patterns is application of mind by human agency. We don't want to make any comment now. Bihar SIR never considered Logical Discrepancy. Because it was done for the first time. There were certain issues [...] we had permitted you to go ahead. It did not mean we had finally decided on it," Justice Bagchi said.

Also from the hearing - Delhi SIR : Why Deleted Voters Asked To File Form 6 When They Were On 2026 Rolls? Supreme Court Asks ECI