New Delhi, Sept. 23 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission to take steps to "inspire confidence" among voters in Delhi's ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, questioning whether notices issued to 3.3 million electors were being sent "mechanically" or were even "computer generated". The court asked the EC to clarify the category of "logical discrepancy" and also asked the poll panel to examine whether the notices clearly told voters what information or documents would suffice to answer the discrepancies flagged against them. It directed the Election Commission to file a status report on the steps taken to address the concerns. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said that EC needed to ensure that the process did not merely generate notices but enabled voters to respond effectively. "Please look into it. Almost mechanically notices are going.as if they are computer-generated," observed the bench during a hearing on a petition, filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, challenging the alleged failure of the EC and Delhi chief electoral officer to disclose the names of voters who had been issued notices and the specific reasons for doing so. The court's intervention came against the backdrop of 4.76 million names having been excluded from Delhi's draft electoral roll published on August 31, while another 3.31 million voters whose names remain in the draft roll have been flagged for possible discrepancies. The bench specifically asked EC to clarify the category of "logical discrepancy", observing that the expression needed greater clarity. The poll panel, represented through senior advocate DS Naidu, told the court that every notice contained the reason and that the 12 documents prescribed for the exercise were not exhaustive. The bench said EC should make the process easier for voters by identifying the kind of information that would suffice to answer common queries. It suggested that where there were 15-20 recurring types of discrepancies or objections, the EC could prepare standard responses and circulate them to officials and voters. "Maybe little bit orientation is required.to inspire confidence," said the bench, suggesting that where mobile numbers of voters were available, they could be told what information would be sufficient to answer the particular query. The petitioners, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, questioned the practical burden being placed on voters who received notices. Bhushan referred to examples where discrepancies allegedly related to the age gap between an elector and his or her parents, or the gap between siblings, but the documents listed by EC did not necessarily contain information to explain such anomalies. The bench said the 14,000 booth level officers (BLOs) deployed in Delhi could assist voters in responding to such notices. The EC said 1,200 electoral registration officers (EROs) were also working on the exercise and that it had increased manpower to deal with the pendency....