Delhi HC questions ECI on mandatory SIR duty for teachers

The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over compelling government school teachers to serve as booth level officers (BLOs) and enumeration staff for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Capital, observing that such assignments should be voluntary rather than mandatory

The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over compelling government school teachers to serve as booth level officers (BLOs) and enumeration staff for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Capital, observing that such assignments should be voluntary rather than mandatory.

A petition contended that entire teaching staff had been withdrawn from several schools during working hours, leaving classes to be handled by guest teachers or teachers from unrelated subjects, thereby adversely affecting students’ education. (HT Archive)

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia observed that government school teachers were not ECI employees and noted that while the Representation of the People Act empowered electoral registration officers to requisition staff, Supreme Court judgments appeared to place limits on compelling teachers to perform election-related duties.

“Can these instructions issued by you be mandatory? You say you are compensating them and asking them to come on holidays. They need rest. It must be voluntary. Taking shelter under Article 324, you can do whatever you like? If an employee doesn’t follow the ECI’s order, it is punishable. We are examining your authority to requisition their services,” the bench told the ECI’s counsel.

Referring to ECI’s July 14 communication, the court added: “In your July 14 notice, you refer to these employees as volunteers. If you are calling them volunteers, can you say it is mandatory? They are not your employees. Section 13B of the Representation of the People Act empowers electoral registration officers to deploy such employees, but there are Supreme Court judgments which perhaps say you cannot do that.”

The petition contended that entire teaching staff had been withdrawn from several schools during working hours, leaving classes to be handled by guest teachers or teachers from unrelated subjects, thereby adversely affecting students’ education.

Opposing the plea, ECI submitted that government school teachers were being assigned BLO duties only outside school hours and on holidays, and were being paid compensation along with an honorarium. It further argued that it had adopted a “liberal approach” wherever schools expressed difficulty in sparing teachers.

ECI also told the court that BLOs were drawn not only from government schools but also from among retired officials and employees of agencies such as the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other government departments.

The ECI counsel added that the SIR exercise was nearing completion and that adequate care had been taken to ensure teachers’ classroom responsibilities were not adversely affected.

After hearing both sides, the court directed the ECI to file an affidavit explaining its stand on the issue and posted the matter for further hearing on July 28.