Delhi High Court Questions Election Commission's Use of Teachers for Voter List Revision

The Delhi High Court has raised significant questions regarding the Election Commission's decision to assign school teachers as Booth Level Officers during the voter list revision process. The court is examining the legal authority behind this directive and the implications for teachers who may face disciplinary action for non-compliance. As the Special Intensive Revision nears completion, the ECI's counsel argues that only a small percentage of teachers will be needed. However, the court is concerned about the impact on teachers' holidays and the nature of their involvement, prompting a call for clarification on the voluntary nature of these duties. This case highlights the intersection of education and electoral processes in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 24, 2026, 18:35 IST

Court Challenges Election Commission's Decision

On Friday, the Delhi High Court raised concerns regarding the Election Commission of India (ECI) appointing school teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLO) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in the national capital. The court inquired about the authority under which teachers are being compelled to participate in election duties. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by lawyers Rajesh Kumar Gogna and Ashok Agarwal, which contested the large-scale deployment of teachers from government, municipal, and aided schools for BLO and SIR tasks. During the proceedings, the bench questioned whether the ECI could invoke Article 324 of the Constitution to justify its actions.

The Chief Justice remarked, "Can you do anything by relying on Article 324?" He requested the commission to clarify the legal basis for directing school teachers to undertake SIR duties. The court also noted that teachers who refuse such assignments might face disciplinary actions. It observed that although the ECI refers to these individuals as "volunteers," they essentially have no choice but to comply with orders. The bench urged the commission to issue a statement declaring that this work is voluntary, promising to resolve the petition thereafter.

Arguments Presented by ECI's Counsel

Sanjay Vashisth, the lawyer representing the ECI, informed the court that the Special Intensive Revision process in Delhi is nearing completion, with only 10 to 14 percent of school teachers needed for the final adjustments to the voter list. He argued that the commission's authority to engage staff stems from Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, and to minimize inconvenience, this power is rarely exercised. Vashisth further stated that according to the ECI's guidelines, teachers are required to perform BLO duties only outside of their teaching hours and holidays. However, the bench questioned why teachers should have to forfeit their holidays for election-related work. They expressed skepticism about the commission's claims regarding compensation, asking if the issued directives could be considered mandatory and whether teachers' time off could simply be disregarded.