A citizens’ audit of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Y Block, Mangolpuri, has challenged the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer’s defence of deletions from the draft electoral roll, alleging that in four of six cited cases the official explanation rests on “an unrecorded, unnamed ‘local inquiry’ or oral statement” rather than documented evidence. The detailed response follows a four-hour public hearing on 5 September 2026 before a citizens’ jury chaired by Justice (Retd.) Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
The jury included Syeeda Hameed, Bezwada Wilson, Annie Raja, Nisha Siddhu, Subhash Bhatnagar, Maj. Gen. Anil Verma (Retd.) and Tara Rao. The audit covered all eight polling booths of Block Y. Volunteers conducted door-to-door verification from August to 4 September 2026, covering 1,448 of 1,516 houses—about 93%—and over 9,000 of approximately 10,000 voters on the January 2025 roll. Every base-roll elector was matched by EPIC number against the Draft SIR 2026 roll and the ERO’s ASDD (Absent/Shifted/Dead/Duplicate) removal list.
Of 9,838 electors on the January 2025 base roll, the document says 5,729 (58%) were retained in the Draft SIR 2026; 2,781 (28%) were placed on the ASDD removal list; and 1,328 (13%) were dropped entirely—in neither list, with no reason recorded. The audit found over 450 electors field-verified present but placed on the ASDD list; over 500 electors present and still resident but dropped from the SIR with no entry; roughly 95 households where one spouse or parent was removed while the rest of the immediate family was retained; and 144 voters (1.5%) quietly deleted through routine monthly roll updates between February 2025 and June 2026.
At the public hearing, 153 individual cases from 89 households were documented—81 disputing ASDD marking, 69 reporting they were left out of the SIR altogether, and 3 seeking corrections. No Booth Level Officer attended, despite invitations to the CEO, ERO and district collector. “No one responded or attended the Jan Sunwai,” the document says.
The CEO’s press note of 9 September addressed six cases. The response takes them point by point.
Neelam: The CEO said she had shifted permanently long ago and was placed under ASDD on the basis of local inquiry/field information. The response says Neelam (EPIC ZIP1410182), a polio-affected resident of House 968, old Part 120, has lived there her whole life, voted in the February 2025 Delhi Assembly election and submitted her SIR enumeration form. She was nonetheless marked “Permanently Shifted” on the strength of “an unnamed, unrecorded statement by ‘known people’ in the locality to the Booth Level Officer, not on the basis of her own submitted form or any documented visit to her home.” Her family remains on the roll; only her name was cut.
Sunita Devi: The CEO addressed her jointly with Neelam. The response says Sunita, wife of Sippu Jan, House 969, was marked “Permanently Shifted.” Her mother-in-law and brother-in-law remain on the Draft SIR, and an electricity connection for the house is registered in her husband’s name. “Why does documented proof of residence at the address … not outweigh an unrecorded oral statement?” the response asks.
Laxmi Devi: The CEO said she and her husband had shifted permanently and were already deleted prior to SIR, so no enumeration form could have been generated. The response says records for House 1098 show Laxmi Devi and Om Prakash dropped, in neither list; two sons marked “Untraceable/Absent”; and the youngest son retained in the Draft SIR. Field verification found all five family members present. It calls it “one family, one address, one informant, five outcomes.”
Kanta Prasad: The CEO said the roll shows two different electors, that the ASDD “Death” entry was supported by information furnished by a family member, Shivanshu, and that Kanta Prasad s/o Buchan Prasad has separately filed a Form 6. The response says Kanta Prasad (EPIC ZIP1239292) is the same person, who sought a name correction, not deletion. He was marked “Death.” His son Shivanshu’s signed statement says a BLO had him sign a paper without disclosing its purpose. “I clearly state that I have not given any information about my father’s death, because my father is alive,” Shivanshu’s statement says.
Rehana: The CEO said her husband, Mohd. Sher, refused to receive the enumeration form, so her name was placed under ASDD. The response says Mohd. Sher and two children, Ilma and Ashfi, are present in the Draft SIR—only Rehana was removed. “If the household’s enumeration form was refused, why are Mohd. Sher, Ilma and Ashfi present in the Draft SIR while Rehana alone is on the ASDD list?” it asks.
Guddli Devi: The CEO said her particulars could not be conclusively matched, but one Guddli Devi in PS 125 was reported to have shifted and was included in ASDD on the basis of local inquiry. The response says Guddli Devi was deleted before the February 2025 election itself, with no reason given, and has been a resident of Y Block, Mangolpuri, for more than 45 years.
The response concludes: “In four of the six cases (Neelam, Sunita Devi, Laxmi Devi, Guddi Devi), the CEO’s own explanation rests on an unrecorded, unnamed ‘local inquiry’ or oral statement—not on a documented visit, notice, or evidence shown to the family.” It adds: “These six cases are illustrative, not exceptional: our door-to-door audit of Block Y found over 450 electors wrongly placed on the ASDD list, over 500 electors dropped from the SIR with no entry on any list at all, and there were roughly 95 households where one family member was removed while the rest were retained at the same address.”
The demands include immediate Jan Sunwais and camps in Mangolpuri until every claim and objection is heard publicly; reopening all cases; restoring wrongfully deleted electors through Form 8, “not as fresh Form 6 registrants”; publishing dated records of the “local inquiry” relied on in each case; fixing accountability; investigating how Shivanshu’s signature was used; applying the ECI’s Manual on Electoral Rolls (December 2023), paragraphs 11.2.4(vi) and 24.1.2; and ensuring a documented minimum of three visits on separate days before any “absent” or “shifted” marking, along with public reading of the draft roll.
The response is submitted by Jan Sarokar Voter Adhikar Manch, National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), with annexures on wrongly marked ASDD electors, wrongly deleted electors, select case studies, an impact note and a tribunal report.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor