Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on PIL for Electoral Rights of Displaced

The Delhi High Court deliberated on a PIL that urges action to ensure the inclusion of homeless and displaced persons in the electoral rolls amid the Special Intensive Revision in Delhi. The court highlighted the Election Commission's responsibility and deferred its decision after reserving the verdict.

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking measures to ensure that homeless individuals and those displaced by demolition drives are included in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the national capital.

A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, emphasized that not all matters could be imposed upon the courts. The court underscored the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in addressing the issue effectively.

The PIL, filed by Indu Prakash Singh, advocates for mechanisms that guarantee the enrollment of eligible homeless and displaced individuals despite lacking a permanent address. The petitioner highlighted issues faced by these groups during house-to-house electoral exercises due to loss of homes from demolitions.

The court was informed that a representation submitted to the authorities on July 10 had not been adequately addressed, drawing the Bench to remark that it was the responsibility of the concerned bodies to devise pragmatic solutions.

The ECI noted existing policies for addressing homelessness and displacement, pointing to measures like Form 6 and the involvement of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to enroll eligible persons. The poll body asserted no existing policy gap.

The court questioned the petitioner regarding specific cases of exclusion from the SIR process and emphasized the necessity of presenting concrete instances to support claims.

Concerns were raised about potentially over three lakh homeless or displaced individuals being affected by demolitions, with the petitioner alluding to past cases of exclusion numbering 650.

The Bench reserved judgment but reiterated that the court should not be burdened with monitoring every policy. The petitioner was advised to make representations to authorities in instances of non-implementation and was granted the liberty to revisit the court if required.