Court finds Election Commission Manual already provides comprehensive procedure for enrolment of homeless and demolition-displaced persons in electoral rolls during Special Intensive Revision exercise in Delhi
The Delhi High Court on August 19, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking special facilitative mechanisms for the inclusion of homeless individuals and persons displaced by demolition drives in the electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) already has an adequate framework in place under its Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023, to address the enrolment of homeless persons, and that the petitioner's apprehensions of systematic exclusion were unfounded.
The PIL was filed by Indu Prakash Singh, represented by Senior Advocate Satyakam, who argued that the SIR exercise — initiated through ECI Directive No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II) dated May 14, 2026 — was structurally discriminatory against homeless persons and individuals displaced by large-scale demolition drives conducted across Delhi since 2023 by agencies including the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and Indian Railways. The petitioner estimated that approximately 3 lakh individuals had been rendered homeless, though no official figures existed.
Senior Advocate Satyakam contended that the SIR methodology, which relies on house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) dispatching forms to addresses recorded in the last Electoral Roll, inherently excludes displaced persons. He argued that when BLOs visit demolished addresses, they are likely to mark displaced electors as "shifted" or "absent," effectively leading to their deletion from the rolls without any inquiry or opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that homeless persons face insurmountable difficulties in establishing "ordinary residence" under Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, having lost documents and fixed addresses.
The petitioner also pointed to a statement by Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer, reported in the Indian Express on June 30, 2026, acknowledging that demolition-affected persons constitute "special cases" requiring separate handling, yet argued that no targeted measures, special camps, or policy frameworks had been implemented.
The petitioner sought multiple reliefs, including a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to formulate special facilitative mechanisms, identify and enumerate displaced persons, issue standard operating procedures for electoral officers, establish dedicated grievance redressal mechanisms, and invalidate the ECI directive mandating preparation of the draft electoral roll by August 17, 2026, without adequate protective measures.
Countering these submissions, counsel for the ECI drew the Court's attention to Clause 8.5 of the Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023, which explicitly provides for the enrolment of homeless and pavement dwellers who lack documentary proof of ordinary residence. Under this provision, BLOs are required to visit the address provided by the homeless person in Form 6 for more than one night to verify that the individual actually sleeps at the specified location. Additionally, to prevent fraudulent enrolment of foreign nationals, BLOs must record statements from such persons regarding their place of birth and previous residence.
The ECI's counsel also placed on record an extract of the Draft Electoral Roll demonstrating that homeless persons were already being included, with their names, photographs, age, and gender recorded and house numbers marked as "0." It was further submitted that the SIR exercise for Delhi had already been concluded and any specific cases of exclusion could be addressed by approaching the ECI directly.
The Court also took note of the Supreme Court's order dated February 23, 2026, in Sana Parveen v. Election Commission of India, where a similar petition under Article 32 was not entertained due to seriously disputed questions of fact, and petitioners were directed to approach the District BLO for remedial action.
Dismissing the PIL, Justice Karia, delivering the oral judgment, held that the petitioner had made "bald averments" regarding exclusion without providing any particulars or numbers of persons who remained excluded from the Electoral Roll after the last Delhi Assembly Elections. The Court observed that any elector excluded due to demolition or relocation could file Form 6 under Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that the Manual's verification mechanism through BLO visits was adequate.
"We do not find any vacuum as alleged by the Petitioner given that the existing mechanism for inclusion of the names of the homeless persons is found to be adequate and being implemented by the ECI," the Court concluded, disposing of the petition along with the pending application.
Statutory Provision(s): Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950; Article 326 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 8.5 of the Election Commission of India Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023; Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
