‘Under which authority are teachers being deployed?’ Delhi HC questions ECI over forcing teachers into SIR duty

The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to deploy school teachers for work related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the national capital. The Court asked whether the poll body could use its constitutional powers to assign such duties without clear legal authority.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia examined the issue while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the ECI’s decision.

Advertisement

“Can you do whatever you like under Article 324?”

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the ECI’s reliance on Article 324 of the Constitution, which gives the Commission powers to supervise, direct and control elections to Parliament and State legislatures.

The judges asked whether the ECI could act without limits simply by referring to Article 324.

“Taking shade of Article 324, you do whatever you like?” the Bench remarked.

The Court also wanted to know under which legal provision the Commission was directing school teachers to carry out SIR duties. It noted that teachers who refuse such work could face disciplinary action from the ECI.

ECI says only a small number of teachers are deployed

Appearing for the Election Commission, Advocate Sanjay Vashishtha argued that the SIR exercise in Delhi was almost complete. He informed the Court that only around 10 to 14 percent of school teachers are eventually required for electoral roll revision work.

He submitted that the Commission derives its authority from Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act and that this power is used carefully to avoid unnecessary inconvenience.

According to the ECI, teachers are assigned election-related work only during holidays or outside normal teaching hours.

Court questions ‘voluntary’ nature of the duty

The Bench, however, was not convinced by the ECI’s explanation. It observed that although the Commission describes the personnel as “volunteers,” they do not actually have the freedom to refuse the assignment.

The judges even suggested that if the ECI officially declared the work to be completely voluntary, the matter could be resolved.

The Court further questioned why teachers should be expected to work as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during holidays.

It pointed out that government teachers also deserve time off and asked whether payment of an honorarium could justify taking away their holidays.

“Somebody is not interested in your honorarium or compensation. Can these instructions issued by you be said to be mandatory? Can you say no, no, no, we are compensating, please come. Destroy their holidays? Don’t they need rest?” the Bench asked.

Petition alleges disruption of classroom teaching

The PIL was filed by advocates Rajesh Kumar Gogna and Ashok Agarwal. They argued that the deployment of teachers for SIR work has seriously affected classroom teaching in many government and aided schools.

According to the petition, in several schools almost the entire regular teaching staff was withdrawn during school hours. As a result, classes were handled either by guest teachers or by teachers from unrelated subjects.

The petition also argued that the work is not limited to holidays or non-teaching hours. Teachers are required to attend full-day training sessions, conduct house-to-house verification, carry out data entry and complete verification work over several weeks, leading to continuous disruption of academic activities.

Plea alleges discrimination against government schools

The petition further claimed that the ECI’s decision is discriminatory because only teachers from government, municipal and government-aided schools are being assigned SIR duties, while no teachers from private unaided schools have been requisitioned.

According to the petitioners, this has affected students from lower-middle-class and economically weaker families, as they mainly study in government and aided schools.

The plea also argued that the deployment violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School, conflicts with provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and overlooks the availability of a large number of non-teaching government staff who could be assigned election work under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitioners urged the Court to direct the ECI to limit the deployment of school teachers to a maximum of 10 percent of the regular teaching staff in any school.