Telangana High Court Refuses to Interfere in Electoral Roll Deletion Grievance, Cites Ongoing SIR Process

Division Bench declines to direct restoration of a voter's deleted name, holding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision already offers a remedy under the Representation of the People Act.

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of a voter's name and his family members' names to the electoral rolls, holding that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) already provides the forum for such correction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, in an order dated 30.06.2026, declined to direct the Election Commission of India to act on the petitioner's representations, noting that the SIR process initiated under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950, covers both inclusion and deletion grievances. The petitioner, Syed Qutubuddin Masood, had approached the court in Writ Petition No.20188 of 2026 after his representations dated 12.05.2024, 14.11.2025 and 01.04.2026 went unanswered.

The Grievance Before the High Court

The petitioner's counsel, Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi, told the court that his client's name had been included in the last Special Intensive Revision conducted in 2002 for Assembly Constituency No.218, Charminar. The electoral roll from that exercise, he submitted, reflected errors in certain particulars, and the very purpose of SIR was to produce accurate, error-free rolls, a purpose the respondents had failed to fulfil.

To get these errors corrected, the petitioner and his family members sent a notice on 12.05.2024 to the Electoral Registration Officer, Bahadurpura, and the Booth Level Officer for Part No.56, by e-mail and speed post. They asked for reasons and grounds for the deletion of their names, the identity of the officer responsible, whether any field-level enquiry preceded the deletion, and copies of related notices and enquiry notes. No response came.

A further representation followed on 14.11.2025 to respondents No.1 and 2 through e-mail. On 01.04.2026, the petitioner again wrote to respondents No.1 to 3, pointing to the SIR 2002 records and flagging concerns about the deletion of names ahead of the proposed SIR in Telangana. That representation was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, but no response was received. The petitioner was instead advised to submit Form-6, which the counsel pointed out is meant for enrolment of new voters attaining the age of 18, not for restoration cases such as his.

The Legal Provisions in Contention

Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides for correction of entries in electoral rolls. He argued that the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, had not been followed before the deletion of the petitioner's and his family members' names. On this basis, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, contending he had no other efficacious or alternative remedy.

The petitioner also drew the Bench's attention to a press note dated 14.05.2026 announcing the schedule for SIR – Phase III, to be conducted across 16 States and 3 Union Territories, including Telangana. House-to-house visits by Booth Level Officers were scheduled from 25.06.2026 to 24.07.2026, with the draft electoral roll due for publication on 31.07.2026. The period for filing claims and objections was set for 31.07.2026 to 30.08.2026. Counsel argued that without prior restoration of the petitioner's name, proper identification and mapping of records during this SIR exercise would not be possible, which could adversely affect his family's inclusion in the revised rolls and cause serious prejudice to their statutory and constitutional voting rights.

Election Commission's Response on the SIR Mechanism

Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4, submitted that the petitioner's grievance was redressable within the SIR now underway, pursuant to the ECI's letter dated 14.05.2026 addressed to Chief Electoral Officers across the concerned States. He referred to Annexure-I of that letter, an earlier communication dated 24.06.2025 to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, which forms the template for the present SIR exercise. Since the last intensive revision in Bihar was carried out in 2003 with 01.01.2003 as the qualifying date, electors such as the petitioner would need to participate in the current SIR through house-to-house enumeration by Booth Level Officers.

Counsel explained that the SIR process addresses both inclusion of eligible electors and deletion of unqualified ones. Those who became eligible after the last revision would need to submit enumeration forms with supporting documents, following which a draft roll would be published. Electors unable to submit filled-in enumeration forms within time may instead file Form-6 along with a prescribed Declaration Form during the claims and objections period. The instructions also provide for display of the list of claims and objections, and for appeal and second appeal under Section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. On this basis, the Election Commission argued that the writ court should not exercise jurisdiction to interfere while a structured SIR mechanism was already in motion.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench recorded that the petitioner had approached the court two years after the alleged deletion, during which his representations had gone unaddressed. But the Bench treated this delay as secondary to a more immediate fact: the Election Commission had itself initiated the SIR to ensure no eligible voter was left off the rolls.

The Bench noted the qualifying date fixed under the 14.05.2026 instructions was 01.01.2003 for existing electors, while those who became eligible afterward could submit enumeration forms during the house-to-house exercise running from 25.06.2026 to 24.07.2026. It observed that the SIR process contemplates publication of draft rolls, a defined window for claims and objections, and appellate remedies under Section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act.

On this footing, the Bench held that since the SIR had been initiated by the Election Commission “in exercise of its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India read with the relevant provisions of the Act,” which supplies both the forum and the procedure for correcting electoral rolls, the writ court “should refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction in the matter.” The reasoning turned on the existence of a parallel statutory mechanism already active on the ground, rather than on the merits of whether the earlier deletion was itself irregular.

Order

The Bench directed that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the SIR process to raise his grievance regarding the deletion of his name and the names of his family members from the electoral rolls. Finding no ground to interfere, the court declined relief.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.