Supreme Court says it has not decided on legality of ‘logical discrepancy’ in SIR

The Supreme Court, on October 28, clarified that it has not yet ruled on the legality of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) use of the ‘logical discrepancy’ category during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court said it had allowed the category in West Bengal only as an interim measure, and that its earlier ruling on the Bihar SIR had not settled the issue.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing petitions challenging aspects of the ongoing SIR in Delhi. 

The petitions, filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and another individual, raise concerns about the transparency of notices issued to voters and the requirement for those excluded from the draft electoral rolls to apply afresh for inclusion.

Justice Bagchi said the Bihar judgement could not be treated as a final determination of every issue arising from the SIR exercise, since the ECI had not used the logical discrepancy category in Bihar. The court had subsequently permitted its use in West Bengal as an interim arrangement, but had not ruled on its legality.

“Bihar SIR is not a binding precedent. There, the ECI had not undertaken Logical Discrepancy as a category. We have permitted you in Bengal as an interim arrangement. We have not finally adjudicated on the legality of Logical Discrepancy,” Justice Bagchi said.

The judge also cautioned against treating oral observations made during hearings as conclusive decisions, particularly in sensitive matters. He said the court did not want to make further comments that could be quoted out of context as though every question had already been decided.

The hearing also examined how the ECI was identifying voters under the logical discrepancy category. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that 19,34,243 electors in Delhi had been issued notices over discrepancies flagged by the system. He argued that the ECI had not clearly defined what constituted a logical discrepancy.

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, submitted that 95% of those affected had been restored. Justice Bagchi questioned why voters whose names appeared on the 2003 electoral roll were now being scrutinised under the category.

“How do you reopen an electoral roll of 2003?” the judge asked, adding that while the ECI had the power to examine individual cases, the court would have to consider the legality of applying such checks on a mass scale.

Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the use of patterns to flag records demonstrated that the process involved human scrutiny. He said the court would examine whether the ECI’s approach amounted to the application of mind by a human agency.

The logical discrepancy category is used by the ECI to flag voter records that contain inconsistencies or apparent anomalies requiring verification. These cases differ from those classified as ‘unmapped’, where an elector’s details cannot be linked to the previous intensive revision of electoral rolls. The petitioners have questioned the criteria used to identify discrepancies and the notices issued on that basis.

"We do not wish to make further comments because observations in sensitive matters are sometimes taken out of context. These observations are not conclusive. There is a difficulty when judicial observations are repeatedly cited out of context as if every issue has already been decided," Justice Bagchi said.