PIL seeking special safeguards for homeless voters during Delhi electoral-roll revision dismissed; HC says existing ECI mechanism is adequate

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the alleged exclusion of homeless persons and persons displaced by demolition drives from Delhi’s electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (“SIR”) exercise. The petitioner contended that the house-to-house enumeration process, based on addresses recorded in the previous electoral roll, would cause displaced electors to be marked as absent or shifted and would prevent persons not included in the previous roll from receiving Enumeration Forms.

It was further alleged that homeless persons faced difficulties in satisfying the ordinary-residence requirement, accessing Forms 6 and 8A, and obtaining enrolment at temporary shelters, pavements or rehabilitation colonies. The petitioner sought directions for a special facilitative mechanism, identification of affected persons, field verification, special enrolment camps, grievance redressal measures, and invalidation of the timeline for preparation of the draft electoral roll.

The Election Commission of India (“ECI”) opposed the petition, relying on Clause 8.5 of its Manual on Electoral Rolls, March 2023, which permits enrolment of homeless and pavement-dwelling persons without documentary proof of ordinary residence, subject to verification by the Booth Level Officer (“BLO”) through visits to the place where the person sleeps.

The ECI also submitted that affected persons could seek enrolment by filing Form 6 and that homeless persons were already appearing in the draft electoral roll with “0” recorded as the house number.

Whether the existing SIR procedure unlawfully or structurally excluded homeless persons and persons displaced by demolition drives from the electoral rolls.

Whether the ECI was required to formulate and implement a special facilitative mechanism, including special camps, relaxed documentation requirements, field verification and grievance redressal, for such persons.

Whether the ECI’s existing mechanism under Clause 8.5 of the Manual on Electoral Rolls, read with Form 6, was adequate to facilitate enrolment of homeless or displaced persons.

Whether the ECI directives requiring preparation of the draft electoral roll by 17 August 2026 were liable to be invalidated for allegedly failing to protect the electoral rights of homeless and demolition-affected persons.

The Court considered Article 326 of the Constitution, which embodies universal adult suffrage, and Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“RP Act”), concerning determination of a person’s ordinary residence in a constituency.

It relied principally on Clause 8.5 of the ECI’s Manual on Electoral Rolls, March 2023, under which homeless persons, including pavement dwellers and persons without documentary proof of ordinary residence, are eligible for enrolment if they ordinarily reside at the stated place; the BLO must verify the person’s presence by visiting that place for more than one night, and record information regarding the person’s place of birth and previous residence.

The Court also applied Rules 13(1) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, under which an excluded or newly situated elector may apply for enrolment through Form 6.

The Court noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Sana Parveen & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 191/2026, where affected persons were directed to approach the District BLO for factual verification and remedial action in accordance with law.

The Court held that the petitioner’s apprehension of an automatic exclusion of homeless persons was unfounded because the ECI Manual already provided a specific procedure for their enrolment without documentary proof of residence.

Under Clause 8.5, a homeless or displaced person could provide the place where he or she ordinarily slept, file Form 6, and have the address verified by the BLO through visits conducted over more than one night.

The Court further found that the ECI had placed on record an extract of the draft electoral roll showing homeless persons by name, photograph, age and gender, with “0” as the house number, demonstrating that the prescribed mechanism was being implemented in practice.

The petitioner’s assertions regarding large-scale exclusion were treated as bald and unsupported because no specific names, particulars or numbers of affected persons were furnished.

In the absence of concrete instances establishing systemic exclusion or inadequacy of the existing procedure, the Court declined to issue policy directions or interfere with the SIR timeline.

It found no legal or factual basis to direct the ECI to create an additional special mechanism, issue targeted guidelines, establish special camps or invalidate the SIR directives.

The PIL was accordingly dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.