Back
Rules Booth Level Agents Liable Only for Verifiable SIR Details
The delivered a landmark ruling on Thursday, , sharply curtailing the liability of Booth Level Agents (BLAs) appointed by political parties during the of electoral rolls in the national capital. Justice Amit Bansal held that BLAs can only be held responsible for information they are capable of independently verifying—namely, whether the photograph on the enumeration form matches the identity of the elector. The court struck down the ’s (ECI) mandate requiring BLAs to furnish personal undertakings certifying the correctness of all particulars in the forms, calling it “.”
The ruling came on a petition filed by president Devender Yadav and DPCC chairman Rajesh Kumar Garg. They challenged Clause 9(d)(iv) of the ECI’s guidelines, which required BLAs to certify that they had personally verified the details contained in enumeration and declaration forms and were satisfied with their accuracy. The petitioners also challenged a subsequent communication from the , dated , which reiterated the same requirement.
Background: The SIR Exercise and BLA Role
The is a focused exercise undertaken by the Election Commission to update and correct electoral rolls by identifying duplicate entries, shifted voters, deceased electors, and other discrepancies. During this process, the ECI permits registered political parties to appoint their own BLAs to participate, ostensibly to ensure transparency and to dispel any perception of partisan bias by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The BLAs assist electors in filling out forms and submitting applications for inclusion, deletion, or correction of entries.
However, the ECI’s standing instructions, as reflected in the Manual of Electoral Rolls, 2023, required BLAs to give a that they had verified every particular in the enumeration form. This undertaking exposed BLAs to potential prosecution under , which makes false declarations in relation to electoral roll preparation punishable with imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.
The Challenge: Unlawful Delegation of Statutory Duty
The petitioners argued that the requirement had no statutory basis under the , or the . They contended that the verification of electoral particulars is a statutory responsibility entrusted solely to Booth Level Officers, Assistant Electoral Registration Officers, and Electoral Registration Officers under . That provision mandates that inclusion of any name in the electoral roll shall be made by the Electoral Registration Officer only after “proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed.”
Senior advocate , appearing for the petitioners, submitted that “the imposition of an undertaking of personal verification upon BLAs amounts to an to private actors.” He argued that the prescribed manner of verification under the Rules is to be conducted by statutory officers, not by political party representatives. The petition further noted that the information required in the enumeration form—such as age, address, and family details—is exclusively within the knowledge of the elector, and a BLA has no means to verify it independently.
Court’s Reasoning: What Can a BLA Actually Verify?
Justice Amit Bansal carefully examined the scope of a BLA’s role and the legal consequences of the ECI’s mandate. The court noted that the ECI itself, in its counter affidavit, had clearly stated that “BLA does not participate in the statutory verification or in any other statutory process related to inclusion or exclusion in electoral rolls.” The court observed that the responsibility for verification and undertaking under the SIR framework rests squarely with the BLOs, who conduct house-to-house verification.
“Once the responsibility of verification and undertaking has been entrusted to the BLOs, there exists no justification for requiring BLAs to furnish personal undertakings certifying the correctness of the particulars in the Enumeration Form,” the court held. It added that “the requirement of the BLA to give an undertaking with regard to veracity of the information contained in this Form is .”
The court then delineated the limited scope of a BLA’s liability under Section 31 of the RP Act. “In the opinion of this Court, BLA can only be made liable in terms of Section 31 of the Representation of People Act for information that can be verified by the BLA, i.e., the photograph in the enumeration form matches with the identity of the elector,” Justice Bansal stated. The court reasoned that a BLA cannot be made liable for all information contained in the enumeration form because there is no way a BLA could be in a position to verify details that are exclusively within the knowledge of the concerned elector.
The court made an important distinction: for forms relating to dead or shifted voters that are filled by BLAs based on information they themselves gather, the BLA would have full responsibility. But for forms submitted by electors themselves, the BLA’s verification duty is confined to the photograph.
Implications for Electoral Process and Party Agents
The ruling provides much-needed clarity for political party representatives who volunteer as BLAs. Previously, the ECI’s undertaking requirement created a , as BLAs feared prosecution for errors or false statements made by electors. The court’s decision aligns the BLA’s role with practical reality—they can check a photograph, but they cannot verify an elector’s age, address, or family composition without intrusive investigation.
Legal experts view the judgment as a reinforcement of the under the Representation of the People Act, which places the burden of verification on trained government officials. The court’s observation that the ECI’s own affidavit admitted BLAs have no statutory role further undermines the basis for the undertaking requirement.
The decision also has implications for future electoral roll revision exercises across the country. While the SIR in Delhi was the immediate context, the principle—that administrative directions cannot delegate statutory functions to private individuals—is of general application. Other high courts may be guided by this reasoning in similar challenges.
Access to Electoral Rolls
In addition to the liability issue, the petitioners had sought printed and electronic copies of the 2002 electoral roll and the ‘Frozen Photo Electoral Roll’ to help BLAs identify discrepancies during the SIR. The court noted that these rolls were already available on the ECI website and could be downloaded or physically obtained from the ECI upon payment of fees. The court directed that the petitioners be free to apply for physical copies of the electoral rolls up to , subject to payment of requisite fees.
Conclusion
The ’s judgment in Devender Yadav & Anr v. & Anr (W.P.(C) 11278/2026) marks a significant check on in the electoral process. By holding that Booth Level Agents cannot be forced to vouch for unverifiable details, the court has protected party volunteers from potential liability while preserving the integrity of the electoral roll revision process. The ruling underscores the fundamental principle that statutory functions must be performed by statutory officers, not delegated to private actors through administrative fiats. As the SIR exercise continues, BLAs can now assist electors without fear of prosecution for matters beyond their control, while BLOs remain accountable for proper verification.
