Singhvi reads the following from the judgment:

"This is evident from the fact that the police refused to accept any other document and prepared stereotype reports which betray non-application of mind and the Electoral Registration Officers abdicated their functions and merely super added their seals to such reports. This, notwithstanding the fact that these persons were voters in previous elections and hence it would ordinarily appear that their cases were verified before their names were entered in the electoral rolls. That is because it may be presumed that official acts performed under the provisions of the 1950 Act or the 1960 Rules were regularly done. Their names were already on the rolls and since they were sought to be removed by undertaking a special revision, whether intensive or otherwise, the procedure for removal had to be followed."