A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the alleged failure of the Election Commission of India and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer to disclose the names of voters issued notices during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, along with the specific reasons for issuing such notices.

The petition, filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also seeks disclosure of the criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines governing the classification of voters under the category of 'Logical Discrepancies'.

The petition was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India today for urgent listing. During the mentioning, Bhushan submitted that apart from the 47 lakh people excluded from the draft electoral roll, notices have allegedly been issued to another 33 lakh voters on grounds including logical discrepancies and being 'unmapped'.

He alleged that the names of persons receiving notices have not been disclosed on the website, while some voters have received notices and others have not. He further submitted that the notices do not specify why the concerned voters have been asked to appear before the electoral authorities.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant indicated that the matter would be taken up on Tuesday, when other SIR-related matters are also listed.

Petition Seeks Transparency In Delhi SIR Notice Process

The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21, besides constitutional rights under Articles 325 and 326.

The petitioners seek directions for publication of a consolidated, searchable list of all electors issued notices during the Delhi SIR, along with their addresses and the specific reason or category for each notice. They have also sought disclosure of the official criteria, definitions, algorithmic parameters and operational guidelines governing the classification of voters under 'Logical Discrepancies'.

The petition further seeks directions requiring the authorities to specify the precise discrepancy and material facts forming the basis of each notice, so that voters can effectively participate in the hearing process.

It also seeks to restrain the deletion of names from electoral rolls following proceedings based on vague notices that do not disclose the relevant factual particulars.

Over 33 Lakh Voters Flagged For Notices

According to the petition, the draft electoral roll published in Delhi on August 31 recorded 97,53,577 electors who had submitted their Enumeration Forms. A further 47,56,722 electors were excluded from the draft roll under the category of ASDD [Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate].

The petition states that 33,12,919 electors included in the draft roll were identified for issuance of notices on the grounds of 'No Mapping' or 'Logical Discrepancies'. Of these, 13,79,785 were identified as having no mapping, while 19,33,134 were classified under logical discrepancies.

The petitioners allege that the Delhi CEO's website disclosed only the number of electors in these categories and did not provide the names or other details of the affected voters.

The petitioners contend that the failure to publish the names of electors issued notices is contrary to the ECI's communication dated May 14, 2026.

According to the petition, paragraph 2(f) of the communication requires Electoral Registration Officers to issue notices to persons who could not be linked, or whose linkage with the electoral roll of the last revision was found to contain discrepancies. It further requires the publication of lists of persons issued such notices on the Chief Electoral Officer's website and display at the relevant local body offices.

The petitioners have also relied on the Supreme Court's January 19, 2026 order in Mostari Banu v. Election Commission of India, wherein directions were issued for publication of names of persons issued notices citing logical discrepancies in their enumeration forms.

The petition states that the ECI subsequently communicated the order to the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, and directed the display of names of electors falling under the categories of logical discrepancies and unmapped at public places.

The petitioners have further pointed to Karnataka, where they claim lists of electors issued notices, along with the reasons for discrepancy, have been made available on the CEO's website constituency-wise and polling booth-wise.

'Logical Discrepancies' Category Undefined

The petitioners contend that the term 'Logical Discrepancies' has not been defined, and that the ECI's May 14 communication does not prescribe specific criteria or parameters for determining when an elector would fall within that category.

The petitioners contend that the original SIR order dated June 24, 2025, also did not mention such a flagging or algorithmic process. They allege that no document or instruction specifying the definition and criteria has been placed on the Delhi CEO's website.

The petition further refers to a report published by The Hindu on September 11, 2026, concerning 11 categories of logical discrepancies in the Delhi SIR. It states that the petitioners are unaware whether the same criteria and categories are being used in Delhi.

The petitioners allege that notices served on electors contain only generic grounds without disclosing the specific facts and circumstances of individual cases.

For instance, the petition refers to notices concerning alleged name mismatches, which state that there is a name mismatch between the current electoral roll and the previous SIR, but allegedly do not identify the name recorded in the earlier roll or the relevant State and year.

Similarly, notices concerning alleged discrepancies in the names of parents or age differences between grandparents and electors allegedly fail to provide details of the persons or records relied upon.

The petitioners contend that such omissions make it difficult for electors to understand the allegations and effectively defend their inclusion in the electoral roll.

The petition has been drawn by Neha Rathi and Kajal Giri Advocates.

Case : Anjali Bharadwaj & another v. Election Commission of India and others