The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) observed that while the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the constitutional authority to requisition government school teachers for election-related work, it must ensure that such duties do not cause "unbearable" stress to teachers.

The Court emphasised that the mandate under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) cannot be overlooked while assigning teachers duties for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation challenging the large-scale deployment of government school teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and enumeration staff for the SIR exercise.

At the outset, the ECI informed the Court that it had filed a detailed affidavit and maintained that no teachers are being engaged in election work during school hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in the St. Mary's School case.

For context, the Supreme Court had in Election Commission Of India vs St. Marys School And Others (2007) directed that "all teaching staff shall be put on the duties of roll revisions and election works on holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers should not ordinarily be put on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours. Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law."

Taking note of this stand, the Bench directed the Commission to remain mindful of the workload placed on teachers.

"After working in a school for 6-8 hours teachers engaged in performing election duty that may cause stress. Therefore it is expected of ECI and its officer to be mindful of stress which a teacher undergoes while performing election related duties after school hours or on non teaching days... We direct that while assigning work related to electoral revision to the teachers the aforesaid aspect shall be kept in mind by ECI and its officers. They shall take all adequate steps so that election-related work does not cause so much stress on the teachers which may be unbearable burden," the Court dictated in its order.

It clarified that there was no dispute regarding the ECI's power to requisition teachers for election work, tracing such authority to Article 324 of the Constitution. However, it stressed that the mandate of Section 27 of the RTE Act, which regulates deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes, "cannot be lost sight of by all concerned."

During the hearing, ECI counsel stated that teachers perform BLO duties after school hours, volunteers have also been deployed for the exercise, and all efforts are being made to ensure that regular teaching is not affected.

The Petitioner however disputed this claim and argued that only after the PIL was filed did the authorities issue circulars directing around 10,000 teachers back to schools, effectively acknowledging their earlier violation of the Supreme Court's directions.

Petitioner also claimed that teachers were receiving conflicting instructions from school principals and election authorities regarding their duties.

The High Court however noted that the ECI had placed a fact sheet on record detailing the number of BLOs and volunteers deployed and said that if the Petitioner disputes it, he must substantiate the allegations with evidence.

"You bring it our notice that how many teachers are on election duty during teaching hours..they (ECI) along with affidavit have filed a fact sheet...They have given numbers. If you have anything contrary to this, you give affidavit," Court orally told the Petitioner.

The Court also questioned the language employed in certain ECI circulars. Referring to a clause stating that no action should be taken by school principals against teachers for election-related duties, the Bench asked why such a direction was necessary if teachers were in fact being deployed only after school hours.

"If they are engaged after school hours, where is the question of any unauthorised leave?" the Court orally asked.

When the ECI submitted that teachers may spend around five hours after school on BLO duties, the Bench remarked that teachers who already spend six to eight hours in classrooms should not be overburdened, especially since many are women with family responsibilities.

"We are not curtailing the rights [of the ECI], but we are also conscious of the conditions of teachers. Asking teachers to work for 11 hours... You have to humanise," the Court orally observed.

In response, the ECI submitted that efforts were being made to ensure no teacher was overworked, refreshments were being provided, and the exercise was nearing completion.

Granting the petitioner liberty to file a rebuttal affidavit, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on August 20.

The petition seeks to rationalise the deployment of teachers and utilise non-teaching staff for election-related work.

It contends that entire teaching faculties in several government schools have been requisitioned for SIR duties during the ongoing academic session, leaving classes to be managed by guest teachers or teachers of unrelated subjects, while private schools continue uninterrupted.

During hearing on last Friday the Bench orally questioned whether the election body can “do whatever it likes” taking the course of Article 324 of Constitution of India?

ECI however submitted that teachers work on SIR duty after school hours, so that full day job and teaching at school is not hampered.

Case Title: RAJESH KUMAR GOGNA & ANR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS

W.P.(C)-10174/2026