The Supreme Court heard a Delhi petition challenging transparency in voter revision notices. The bench clarified that logical discrepancy checks have not received final legal approval.Image used for representational purposes onlyNewdelhi,Oct 28, 2026 18:16 ISTThe Supreme Court has said it has not yet ruled on the legality of the Election Commission's use of the “logical discrepancy” category to scrutinise voter details during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, news agency Press Trust of India reported.The court said its earlier permission to use the category in West Bengal was only an interim arrangement and that its decision in the Bihar revision matter had not settled every issue linked to the exercise.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations on Wednesday while hearing a petition alleging a lack of transparency in notices issued to voters during the ongoing revision exercise in Delhi.Senior advocate D S Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, submitted that the bench had examined every stage of the revision process and upheld its validity, according to PTI.
Justice Bagchi said: “Bihar is not a final determination of every question arising in these proceedings. In Bihar, the Election Commission had not initially undertaken logical discrepancy as a category.
We permitted it as an interim arrangement in West Bengal. We have not finally adjudicated upon the legality of the logical discrepancy exercise.”The judge said the bench did not want to comment further because oral observations in sensitive matters were often quoted out of context and presented as final judicial findings. “We do not wish to make further comments because observations in sensitive matters are sometimes taken out of context.
These observations are not conclusive. There is a difficulty when judicial observations are repeatedly cited out of context as if every issue has already been decided,” he said.
During the revision, a “logical discrepancy” refers to inconsistencies in voter data and demographic details identified automatically by the Election Commission's centralised artificial intelligence and technology platform, ERONet. These include anomalies in a voter's profile or family relationships that do not match on mathematical, biological or clerical grounds.The court, therefore, clarified that its decisions concerning the revision exercises in Bihar and West Bengal did not amount to a final ruling on the legality of using “logical discrepancy” checks.- Ends