The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the District Election Officer (DEO), Lucknow, to examine grievances raised by former residents of Akbar Nagar who were relocated after demolition of their homes. The residents alleged that authorities did not issue them Enumeration Forms (EFs) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Uttar Pradesh. They also alleged that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) told them to apply as “new voters” by filing Form 6.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain a writ petition under Article 32 filed by 91 displaced residents. The Court directed them to first pursue their remedy before the DEO. It clarified that they may approach the High Court if the authorities do not effectively address their grievance.
Petitioners’ Case On Displacement And Voter Status
According to the petition, the applicants lived in Akbar Nagar from prior to 1980 until 2024–2025. After demolition of their houses, authorities rehabilitated them in the Vasant Kunj area outside Lucknow city. Due to the relocation, their electoral constituency changed.
The petitioners contended that the Election Commission of India (ECI) ignored their status as existing electors only because the constituency changed after displacement from Akbar Nagar. They said the ECI treated them as fresh entrants.
Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad appeared for the petitioners. He submitted that their names feature in earlier electoral rolls, including the 2002 rolls. The Bench was also informed that authorities carried out a summary revision in Akbar Nagar in 2025. The names of some petitioners also appear in those rolls.
Court’s Exchange And Refusal To Entertain Plea
When the Chief Justice asked why the petitioners had not approached the High Court, counsel responded: “This is one instance which has come to your lordships, now I have a list of 15 such instances throughout the country.”
The CJI replied that the petitioners “are not doing some kind of all India social service, they should concern themselves with their right only.”
Counsel further argued that the petitioners were poor persons who were relocated after demolition. He said they approached the Supreme Court because it is already seized of other petitions concerning the Uttar Pradesh SIR.
The plea stated that the petitioners and others similarly placed did not receive EFs. Instead, officials asked them to fill Form 6 as “new voters,” which the petition said carries consequences. The petitioners said they wanted to submit EFs first, and then file Form 8 for change of address. They alleged that the respondents/EROs did not allow this sequence for them and other displaced voters.
However, the Bench refused to examine the matter on merits. It observed that entertaining such a plea would “open a Pandora’s box.”
Direction To DEO And Liberty To Approach High Court
The Court directed the District Collector, Lucknow (District Election Officer), to verify the factual aspects of the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioners. It also asked the officer to take appropriate remedial action in accordance with law. The Court permitted the petitioners to move the High Court if the issue persists.
“In view of the facts and situations involved, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 32,” the Court said.
“We direct the District Collector, Lucknow (District Election Officer), to ascertain the facts of the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioners and take a remedial action as per the law. If the petitioners’ grievance is not addressed effectively, they may approach the High Court. It is clarified that we have not expressed anything on merits.”
Why Petitioners Object To Filing Form 6 As ‘New Voters’
The petition stated that requiring existing voters to file Form 6 would create multiple issues, including:
- Their declaration would be inconsistent with official records since they already exist in electoral rolls.
- Filing Form 6 would be contrary to Rule 13(3) of the Rules of 1960.
- The petitioners expressed apprehension that the process was designed to depict electors belonging to a particular community as “new electors,” later label them “D-Voter” or “Ineligible Voters,” and ultimately brand them “non-citizens” or infiltrators.
- The petitioners claimed they learnt that, in several areas, voters who are not well educated or unaware of the consequences filled Form 6 under the impression that it was the Enumeration Form, as suggested by BLOs.
Reliefs Sought
The petition sought, among other directions:
I. A direction to the ECI to ensure that the petitioners and other similarly placed existing voters are provided Enumeration Forms (EFs) for submission with BLOs to complete the SIR process.
II. A direction to extend the SIR schedule in respect of existing voters whose EFs have not been issued.
III. A direction to the ECI to file a status report regarding displaced electors/voters of the Akbar Nagar area whose names appear in the Summary Special Revision 2025 held in January 2025.
Case Details: Sana Parveen and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
