Delhi High Court Emphasizes Balance Between Education Rights and Voter List Review

The Delhi High Court has highlighted the need for a balance between students' right to education and the ongoing voter list review. The court urged the Election Commission to be sensitive to the workload of teachers involved in this process, ensuring they are not overburdened. Concerns were raised about the impact of election duties on teachers' responsibilities, with the court emphasizing the importance of humane treatment. The next hearing is set for August 20, as the court seeks to protect the fundamental educational rights of millions of children in Delhi's government schools.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 28, 2026, 18:07 IST

Court Highlights Need for Sensitivity in Teacher Assignments

The Delhi High Court has underscored the importance of balancing students' right to education with the ongoing Special Intensive Review (SIR) of the voter list in the national capital. The court urged the Election Commission to be 'sensitive' regarding the roles of teachers from government schools involved in this process, ensuring they are not overburdened.

During a session on Tuesday, the bench, led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, acknowledged the significance of the SIR but expressed dissatisfaction with the 'threatening language' used in directives issued to principals regarding election-related duties.

The bench also instructed authorities to ensure that teachers assigned as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and counting personnel do not face undue pressure after long hours of work in schools. They stated, 'We only ask that you show some sensitivity towards their situation. We are not undermining your authority; we understand the human circumstances these teachers are facing. Expecting any teacher to work for 11 hours... most of them are women with families and children. You must view their circumstances from a humane perspective. What kind of language did you use when issuing orders? Are you trying to instill fear?'

Concerns Over Education Rights and Election Duties

The bench remarked, 'We do not underestimate the work being done by the Election Commission. The issue is how to balance this with Section 27 of the Right to Education Act. It seems you care little for the Right to Education Act. The tone you have used makes the entire letter sound threatening.'

In response to allegations from the petitioner that teachers were not allowed to fulfill their school responsibilities, the court requested them to file a reply to the Election Commission's response, providing specific instances where teachers were instructed to prioritize election duties over teaching.

The Election Commission's lawyer assured the court that no excessive burden was being placed on government teachers. They mentioned that volunteers were available to assist and that refreshments were being provided. They also noted that the SIR process is scheduled to conclude by August 8, and that regular classes have not been disrupted, as teachers were instructed to work during holidays, non-teaching days, or non-teaching hours, following Supreme Court directives.

Next Steps and Future Hearings

The lawyer for the Election Commission stated that no complaints had been received from teachers, and the number of teachers actually assigned from schools was quite low, around 14 percent.

The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for August 20, expressing hope that the Election Commission and its officials will consider the court's observations when assigning teachers to electoral review tasks. The court's order emphasized that the Election Commission and its officials are expected to take into account the responsibilities of teachers working during after-school hours or on non-teaching days when assigning election-related duties.

The court insisted that all necessary measures be taken to ensure that election-related tasks do not impose an unbearable burden on teachers.

Petitioners Advocate for Educational Rights

Lawyers Rajesh Kumar Gogna and Ashok Agarwal, representing the public interest petition, stated their aim is to protect the fundamental right to education for millions of children attending government, municipal, and government-aided schools in Delhi. They highlighted that teachers from these schools have been assigned to the SIR process.

The petition claimed that 149 teachers from 15 government schools in the Ambedkar Nagar assembly constituency have been assigned to the SIR. It was alleged that regular teachers were removed during teaching hours in several schools, with classes being conducted by guest teachers or teachers of other subjects.

The petition argued that this assignment contradicts established law in the Election Commission versus St. Mary's School case and violates Sections 27, 25, and 26 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.

Additionally, it pointed out that a significant number of non-teaching staff available under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act were overlooked. The public interest petition requested the court to rationalize the deployment of school teachers, limiting it to a maximum of 10 percent, and to assign their duties outside of teaching hours. It also requested that available non-teaching staff be utilized for the SIR process.