Delhi HC limits booth-level agents’ liability in SIR, holding they cannot certify all details in voters’ enumeration forms

The petitioners, including the President of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee and its Chairman, Booth Management Committee, challenged the requirement under Clause 9(d)(iv) of the Election Commission of India’s Detailed Guidelines for Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”) that Booth Level Agents (“BLAs”) submit a personal undertaking certifying that they had verified and were satisfied with the correctness of particulars in electors’ Enumeration Forms.

They contended that, under the modified SIR Guidelines, verification of the particulars was entrusted to Booth Level Officers (“BLOs”), while the information in the Enumeration Forms was substantially within the personal knowledge of the elector.

The petitioners also sought printed and electronic copies of the 2002 electoral rolls and the frozen/final electoral roll to enable BLAs to assist in the SIR process.

The ECI defended the undertaking as an accountability measure consistent with Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“RP Act”), and stated that the electoral rolls were available online or could be obtained physically upon written request and payment of the prescribed fee.

Whether requiring a BLA to personally undertake that the particulars contained in electors’ Enumeration Forms had been verified and were correct was arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly when statutory verification was assigned to the BLO.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to printed and electronic copies of the 2002 electoral rolls and the frozen/final electoral roll for facilitating the participation of BLAs in the SIR process.

The Court applied Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution, recognising the ECI’s broad procedural and administrative power to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, as upheld in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2026 INSC 564.

Section 31 of the RP Act criminalises knowingly or recklessly making false written statements or declarations in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.

The ECI Manual of Electoral Rolls, 2023 assigns BLAs the responsibility for information personally gathered or verified by them, including lists of dead or shifted voters and bulk applications, and requires corresponding declarations.

However, the accountability imposed on a BLA must be confined to matters within the BLA’s ability to verify; the statutory verification of electors’ particulars remains the responsibility of the BLO.

The Court distinguished between information independently collected or verified by a BLA and information supplied by an elector in an Enumeration Form.

Under the Manual, a BLA could properly be held responsible for statements in forms concerning dead or shifted voters because those forms were prepared on the basis of the BLA’s own verification.

In contrast, the particulars in an Enumeration Form were substantially within the exclusive knowledge of the elector. The form itself required the BLO to verify the particulars, and the SIR Guidelines expressly placed responsibility for document and house-to-house verification on the BLO.

Since the ECI also acknowledged that a BLA does not participate in the statutory verification or inclusion/exclusion process, there was no rational basis to require the BLA to certify the correctness of every particular in the Enumeration Form.

The Court nevertheless held that a BLA could be made accountable for matters capable of personal verification, particularly whether the photograph corresponded with the identity of the elector submitting the form.

As to the electoral rolls, the ECI’s undertaking to provide physical copies upon written request and payment of the prescribed fee, while making the relevant rolls available online, satisfied the petitioners’ second prayer.

The BLA’s liability under Section 31 of the RP Act was confined to information capable of being verified by the BLA, including whether the photograph matched the identity of the elector.

The challenge under prayer (a) was accordingly disposed of with these findings and directions.

Prayer (b) was treated as satisfied because the ECI had made the electoral rolls available online and agreed to supply physical copies, including photographs, upon written request and payment of the requisite fee.

The pending application was also disposed of.