Published Oct 14, 2026 | 11:47 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 14, 2026 | 11:47 AM
The Election Commission of India.
Synopsis: The Election Commission of India has told the Telangana High Court that electors excluded from the final electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision would receive reasoned, appealable orders if they attended hearings and submitted the required documents. The absence of an order would amount to inclusion, the poll body said.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday, 13 October, told the Telangana High Court that electors left out of the final electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) would receive reasoned, appealable orders if they attended hearings and submitted the required documents. The absence of an order would amount to inclusion, the Commission said.
The submission came during the hearing of a petition by Hyderabad-based social activist SQ Masood and his brother Syed Waheed Uddin, who challenged notices issued to electors after ECINet/ERONET, an automated data-matching platform, flagged minor discrepancies in enumeration forms.
The ECI told a division bench of Acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda that the grievances raised by the two petitioners had either been answered or were under consideration.
Also Read: SIR: Telangana CEO orders special drive, two-day camp to enrol voters missing from rolls
The Commission’s counsel said Masood’s name was absent from the draft electoral roll because it was not in the original roll either. He had subsequently filed Form 6 seeking enrolment, and the request was under consideration, the counsel said. The outcome would be reflected in the final electoral roll, due on 9 November. If the request were rejected, the petitioner would receive written reasons, the counsel added.
The second petitioner’s name was already on the draft roll, but he had received a notice because his father’s name did not match the records, the counsel said. A hearing had been held and a reply sent on 1 September. The petitioner might have received the reply only after approaching the court, the counsel said.
Senior Advocate L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioners, said a public interest litigation on the larger issue was also pending and sought a joint hearing.
According to Live Law, the bench orally observed that the PIL could be heard separately if the authorities resolved the petitioners’ grievances, as its scope differed from that of a writ petition filed by individuals aggrieved by specific action.
The bench listed the matter for Thursday, after the petitioners’ counsel sought time to verify the ECI’s submissions.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
