Voters' Names Won't Be Deleted From Electoral Rolls Without Giving Them Prior Notice : Election Commission Tells Supreme Court

After the Election Commission of India affirmed that the names of voters will not be deleted from the electoral rolls without giving them prior notice, the Supreme Court recently disposed of a PIL which challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The petitioners, former bureaucrats M.G. Devasahayam, Somasundar Burra, and Aditi Mehta, had contended that the said Rule allowed for deletion of names from electoral roll without any inquiry or opportunity of being heard.

A division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S V N Bhatti closed the PIL on being satisfied of ECI’s explanation of the relevant statutory provisions pertaining to deletion of voters from electoral rolls:

“Election Commission of India sets out the contours and objective of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (RER 1960). In terms of the counter affidavit and the purpose behind the RER 1960, Rule 18 has to be read along with Rules 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 21A and 22 of the RER 1960. In fact, the Election Commission of India has also issued letter no. 23/1/2013-ERS dated 11.12.2013 in this regard to prevent wrongful deletion of entries from the electoral rolls.” 

Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 reads as follows:

“Acceptance of claims and objections without inquiry.—

If the registration officer is satisfied as to the validity of any claim or objection, he may allow it without further inquiry after the expiry of one week from the date on which it is entered in the list exhibited by him under clause (b) of rule 16:

Provided that where before any such claim or objection has been allowed, a demand for inquiry has been made in writing to the registration officer by any person, it shall not be allowed without further inquiry.”

The argument made by the Petitioners was that Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 authorises the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to delete a voter's name from the roll without notice or a chance to be heard. While this rule allows the ERO to accept claims or objections without an investigation, there is a provision that if an aggrieved person requests an inquiry in writing, the ERO must conduct one, the ECI submitted in its affidavit.

Voters' name not deleted without prior intimation to them : What did ECI say in its affidavit?

"It is further stated that the name of a voter is not deleted from the electoral roll without prior intimation or notice to him by the concerned ERO", the ECI stated. It explained the statutory provisions as follows.

To prevent ineligible or fake voters, public notices are issued for all claims and objections filed with the ERO, as per Rule 16 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. These notices, displayed on notice boards and websites, provide details of claimants, objectors, and those objected to, along with the date and place of consideration by the ERO. This allows interested parties to raise objections, the ECI explained in its affidavit.

Rule 17 empowers the ERO to reject claims or objections not adhering to prescribed timelines or formats. Rule 18 lets the ERO accept valid claims or objections without an inquiry if they are satisfied about their validity. However, this acceptance is postponed until seven days after notice publication, or until a written inquiry demand is met, the ECI submitted.

Explaining the other statutory provisions in this regard, the ECI stated that if a claim or objection isn't immediately rejected or accepted, Rule 20 mandates a summary inquiry by the ERO. Notice is given to all concerned parties following Rule 19 and the ERO may, in his discretion, require any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before him and may also require the evidence of any such person to be given on oath. Rule 20 also allows the ERO to consider inputs from other relevant individuals.

Rule 21 lets the ERO correct inadvertent or wrongful inclusions before the final roll publication. Section 22(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, allows the ERO to delete entries based on certain conditions, following proper verification and providing the concerned person a chance to respond, the ECI explained in its affidavit.

Further instructions issued in 2013 and 2021

The ECI said that additional safeguards have been introduced through ECI’s instructions, such as the 2013 letter issued to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories emphasizing error-free electoral rolls and instructions against wrongful deletions.

"No deletion should be done without following due process of law as contained in the R P Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In all cases a notice must be issued to the elector and must be duly served on him", the instruction in the letter no. 23/1/2013-ERS dated 11.12.2013 stated.

It also said : "After the final publication of the rolls have been made, no suo motu deletion shall be done in an election year.

Special care must be taken for deletion of persons who have already been issued EPIC (Electors Photo Identification Card)

Wherever any entry is deleted from the electoral roll, a SMS and email should be sent to the concerned elector if his mobile phone or email is available in the electoral data base

The 2021 letter issued by ECI to Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories further details the standard operating procedure for removing names of deceased electors, aligning with the powers granted to the ERO under relevant legal provisions.

Supreme Court endorses the 2013 letter of the ECI

The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the letter in the light of the stand expressed by the ECI.

"In fact, the Election Commission of India has also issued letter no. 23/1/2013-ERS dated 11.12.2013 in this regard to prevent wrongful deletion of entries from the electoral rolls", the Court recorded in the order.

The Court further observed :

“..in case there are individual or specific lapses, it would be open to the parties, including the petitioners, to approach the State Election Commission or the concerned Election Officer. In case any such grievance is not redressed, the parties may take recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law"

Sr. Adv. Salman Khurshid, Adv. Sarim Naved, Adv. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR Adv. Farheen Fatma, Adv. Shabeena Anjum, Adv. Pranay Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: M. G. Devasahayam V. Union of India

Click here to read/download order