Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a public interest litigation (PIL) arising out of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls being undertaken in Delhi, expressing concern that persons who were homeless, displaced, or rendered homeless following demolition drives could be left out of the electoral rolls, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya , CJ and Tejas Karia*, J., noted that the Draft Electoral Roll itself demonstrated inclusion of homeless persons and that persons affected by demolition could seek enrolment through Form 6. Since the existing mechanism was adequate and already being implemented, the Court found no “vacuum” warranting judicial directions for a separate facilitative mechanism.
Background
The petitioner’s case was that the methodology adopted for the SIR exercise was substantially based upon house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and this methodology did not adequately account for persons whose houses had been demolished or who were otherwise without a fixed residence.
The petitioner contended that the SIR exercise created a serious risk of systematic exclusion of homeless and demolition-affected persons. Since BLOs were expected to locate existing electors at the addresses recorded in the previous electoral roll, persons whose homes had been demolished might not be found there and could consequently be treated as “shifted” or “absent”.
The petitioner further pointed out several practical difficulties, including difficulties faced by displaced persons in using Form 6 or Form 8A, problems in establishing “ordinary residence” under Section 20, Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), the absence of an established mechanism for identifying persons living in temporary shelters or on pavements and difficulties faced by persons attempting to register from rented premises.
It was argued that the problem was not merely administrative but affected the constitutional right to participate in elections. The petitioner characterised the existing SIR methodology as a “structurally discriminatory practice” contrary to Article 326 of the Constitution, which guarantees universal adult suffrage. Reliance was also placed upon the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) 2011 Handbook for BLOs, which recognised that homelessness by itself was not a disqualification for electoral enrolment and contemplated field verification at a person’s place of shelter.
The petitioner also referred to the demolition of residential premises in Delhi over the preceding years and asserted that a significant number of people had thereby been rendered homeless. An estimate of approximately 3 lakh affected persons was mentioned, although no official figure exists for the same.
For purposes of explaining the problem, the petitioner divided the affected persons into 2 broad categories, Category A: persons rendered homeless following demolition, (i) those whose names appeared in the electoral roll prepared during the last intensive revision, and (ii) those whose names did not appear in that roll and Category B: persons relocated following demolition, (i) those whose names appeared in the previous intensive-revision electoral roll, and (ii) those whose names did not appear in that roll.
The petitioner argued that persons belonging to these categories could fall outside the house-to-house enumeration exercise and consequently outside the Draft Electoral Roll. It was also submitted that persons not enumerated in the previous electoral roll would not receive an enumeration form and could therefore be excluded without even having the opportunity to be enumerated.
Before approaching the Court, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10 July 2026 to the respondents concerned seeking protection against exclusion of persons evicted pursuant to demolition drives. The petitioner asserted that no corrective action had followed that representation.
The petitioner sought directions requiring the respondents:
-
to formulate and implement a special facilitative mechanism during the SIR exercise for Delhi so that homeless and demolition-displaced persons could be enrolled, have their electoral registration transposed, or retain their names on the electoral rolls;
-
for identification and enumeration of affected persons, appropriate guidelines and SOPs for election officials, special enrolment camps and grievance-redressal mechanisms;
-
invalidation, to the extent challenged, of the ECI directive dated 14 May 2026 and subsequent communication dated 15 July 2026 insofar as they required preparation of the Draft Electoral Roll by 17 August 2026 without providing adequate special facilitative measures.
ECI’s Contentions
The ECI opposed the necessity of issuing the requested directions and submitted that the existing Manual on Electoral Rolls published in March 2023 (Manual), already contained a mechanism specifically addressing the enrolment of homeless persons and pavement dwellers.
The ECI relied upon Clause 8.5 of the Manual which recognises that homeless persons and pavement dwellers who do not possess documentary proof of ordinary residence may nevertheless be eligible for enrolment, provided they are ordinarily residing at the relevant place. The mechanism requires the BLO to visit the address supplied in Form 6 for more than one night to ascertain that the homeless person actually sleeps there. The Manual also provides for recording information concerning the perso’’s place of birth and previous residence, enabling the Electoral Registration Officer to determine the question of citizenship. On this basis, the ECI submitted that there was no “vacuum” in the electoral-roll process concerning homeless persons.
The ECI also relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 February 2026 in Sana Parveen v. ECI, W.P.(C) No. 191/2026, a matter concerned with a persons who claimed to have been residents of a colony that had been demolished and whose names had allegedly been excluded because they no longer possessed an identified residential address. The Supreme Court had declined to entertain the petition in view of the seriously disputed questions of fact and directed the persons concerned to approach the District BLO so that the facts could be ascertained and remedial action taken in accordance with law.
Therefore, the ECI submitted that a person affected by demolition could approach the ECI or the District BLO, submit a fresh address through Form 6, and undergo the verification procedure contemplated by the Manual.
The ECI also placed before the Court an extract of the Draft Electoral Roll showing homeless persons along with their names, photographs, ages and genders. Significantly, the house number column for such persons was shown as “0”.
Analysis
The Court took on record both the March 2023 Manual and the extract of the Draft Electoral Roll. It noted that the Manual already provides a process for determining ordinary residence of homeless persons in accordance with the RP Act. Thus, the absence of a fixed or conventional residential address did not, by itself, create a legal bar to electoral enrolment.
The Court asserted that the petitioner’s apprehension that homeless persons would necessarily be excluded from the Draft Electoral Roll “appears to be without any basis”. It further found that the petitioner had made “bald averments” concerning the exclusion of demolition-affected homeless persons. Although the petitioner asserted that several such persons had been excluded before the previous Delhi Assembly Elections, no particulars or numbers were furnished showing how many persons continued to remain excluded after those elections.
Even if the Court assumed that an elector had been excluded because of demolition or relocation from the existing place of ordinary residence, in such a situation, the person could submit Form 6, issued by the ECI under Rules 13(1) and 26, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Manual provides that, after the relevant details are supplied, the BLO is to visit the stated address for more than one night to verify that the homeless person actually sleeps there. Therefore, the Court concluded that a special mechanism of the kind sought by the petitioner was unnecessary because such a mechanism was already in place.
Further, the Court stated that the Draft Electoral Roll extract placed before the Court reinforced this conclusion. The fact that homeless persons appeared in the roll with their identifying details and a house number recorded as “0” demonstrated, shows that the ECI was actually implementing the procedure contemplated by the Manual during the SIR exercise.
Decision
The Court held that there was no “vacuum” in the mechanism for including homeless persons in the electoral rolls as the existing mechanism was adequate and already being implemented by the ECI. The Court held “none of the prayers sought in the present petition deserves to be granted”.
Consequently, the Court declined to issue directions requiring the ECI to formulate a separate special facilitative mechanism for homeless or demolition-displaced persons. The PIL was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
Also Read: Supreme Court issues directions for voters flagged in West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
[Indu Prakash Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6691, decided on 19-8-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Tejas Karia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyakam, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Ms. Vibha Swaminathan, Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari & Mr. Rehan Ghalib Khan, Advs.
For the Respondent 2/ECI: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Siddhartha Goswami & Ms. Jasmine Morgat, Advs.
For the Respondent 4/ DUSIB: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain & Mr. Sahil Bhaskar, Advs.
