Evan V

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain, under Article 32, a writ petition filed by 91 former residents of Akbar Nagar, Lucknow, who alleged that they were not issued Enumeration Forms (EFs) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Uttar Pradesh after being relocated pursuant to the demolition of their homes.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the District Election Officer (DEO), Lucknow (District Collector), to examine the factual grievances raised by the petitioners and take remedial action in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that if their grievance remains unresolved, the petitioners may avail themselves of remedies before the High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines OCI Cardholder’s Plea to Contest State Bar Council Elections, Cites Citizenship Requirement Under Advocates Act

The petitioners contended that they had been residing in Akbar Nagar since prior to 1980 until 2024–2025, and were subsequently rehabilitated in the Vasant Kunj area outside Lucknow city after the demolition of their homes. According to them, although their constituency changed due to relocation, they remained existing electors and should not have been treated as first-time applicants.

It was argued that the Election Commission authorities did not issue Enumeration Forms to them and that Booth Level Officers instead asked them to apply as new voters by submitting Form 6.

Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners’ names were reflected in earlier electoral rolls, including the 2002 rolls, and that some names also appeared in the 2025 summary revision rolls for Akbar Nagar.

When the Bench queried why the petitioners had not approached the High Court, counsel submitted:" This is one instance which has come to yourlordships, now I have a list of 15 such instances throughout the country." The Chief Justice responded: "They (petitioners) are not doing some kind of all India social service, they should concern themselves with their right only."

Counsel then submitted that the petitioners were economically weak persons displaced by the demolition, and had approached the Supreme Court, as it was already seized of other petitions relating to the Uttar Pradesh SIR. Refusing to entertain the plea directly, the CJI observed that entertaining such petitions at this stage "it would open a Pandora's box."

The Bench thereafter passed the following direction: "In view of the facts and situations involved, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 32. 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 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."

The petition stated: "the Petitioners', and many others, have not been issued Enumeration Forms (EFs). Instead, the ECI asked them to fill Form - 6 as 'New Voters'; which has its own consequences. Petitioners have been seeking to fill Enumeration Form to be followed by filling out Form 8 to change their address. The Respondents/EROs have not permitted this process in the case of these and other similarly placed voters"

According to the petitioners, requiring Form 6 (new voter registration) was objectionable because:

• Their declarations would be contrary to existing electoral records where their names already appear;

• it would allegedly run contrary to Rule 13(3) of the Rules of 1960;

• they apprehended that the process could be used to portray certain electors as “new electors” and later classify them as doubtful/ineligible voters; and

• illiterate or less-informed voters in other areas may have filled Form 6 under the impression that they were submitting Enumeration Forms, based on BLO instructions.

Also Read: Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Be Justified Solely By Gravity Of Allegations; J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Relatives Accused Of Abetment In POCSO Case

The petitioners had sought directions to:

1. permit them and similarly placed existing voters to obtain and submit Enumeration Forms for completion of the SIR exercise;

2. extend SIR timelines for voters who had not been issued Enumeration Forms; and

3. Call for a status report regarding displaced electors from Akbar Nagar whose names appeared in the January 2025 Summary Special Revision.
   
   

Case Title: Sana Parveen and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors. 

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 191/2026

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi