Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Nov 4: The Supreme Court was informed on Wednesday that the Election Commission of India (ECI) “completely ignoring” the top court’s October 28 oral order, was still insisting on the voters excluded after the “Special Intensive Revision” (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Delhi to fill up the Form 6 for re-inclusion in the voters list.
The instructions were issued by the ECI to the voters categorised in the SIR as Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) to file Form 6 which is meant exclusively for the new voters.
The Supreme Court also assured deleted voters on Wednesday that there was no need for any apprehension on issues surrounding their re-enrolment, saying the issue remained under its consideration. A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said this while agreeing to hear a plea concerning the ECI’s clarification issued Tuesday, assuring voters whose names were deleted from the rolls that they need not fear prosecution for submitting Form 6 to register as fresh voters.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who raised the issue, to file an application and said it would hear it on November 19. The CJI Kant said, if needed, the court would ask the Commission to extend the deadline.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday told the bench that the ECI was still insisting on such SIR deleted voters to fill up Form 6. On October 28, the Supreme Court had made it clear that the ECI was in “error” to force pre-existing voters, deleted from the electoral rolls, to apply as new voters under Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Mr Bhushan said the ECI clarification “completely ignores” the October 28 oral observations of the top court about the structural incongruity created by use of Form 6 for voters who are not included in the draft roll and have been put on the Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) list during Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi. He submitted that the SC termed the use of Form 6 for those excluded from the draft roll an error, as they are not first-time voters and were on the voter list until May-June 2026.
Petitioners, activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, represented by advocates, Mr Bhushan, Cheryl D’souza and Neha Rathi, had submitted on October 28 that the ECI was compelling voters to misrepresent themselves as new applicants, an offence which attracts imprisonment. On October 28, the apex court had orally nudged the ECI that such purged voters should be allowed to use Form 8/enumeration form.
The CJI said the case would be heard after Deepavali holidays and assured the voters that they need not fear when the Supreme Court was already dealing with the case. The CJI noted that the ECI has extended the deadline for filing claims and objections to November 25 from the earlier deadline of October 30.
Mr Bhushan said the voters feared that making a declaration in Form 6 that they were fresh voters would invite prosecution. “They are in the horns of a dilemma,” Mr Bhushan submitted. “We are dealing with the matter, how can they feel like that,” the CJI assured. The Bench asked the petitioners to file an application on this aspect, and said the matter would be heard on November 19 and if required the court would ask the ECI to extend the deadline further.
Mr Bhushan reminded the court that it had orally directed that shifted voters (31.59 lakh on the ASDD list) be given the option to fill Form 8, and absent/untraceable voters (11.73 lakh on the ASDD list) be allowed to submit their Enumeration Forms belatedly. The court had also asked the ECI to reach out to the 47 lakh people on the ASDD list, publish the list in Hindi at block/booth levels, and assist voters in filling Enumeration Forms/Form 8, and to extend the deadline for filing claims and objections, he pointed out.
Bhushan said the ECI’s clarification letter “completely ignores” the SC’s directions on using Form 8/enumeration form for voters on the ASDD list in Delhi SIR and, in fact, reiterates the position that Form 6 must be filled. It also, he said, “completely bypasses” the SC’s criticism regarding the “structural incongruity” of treating existing voters in the 2026 voter list who were deleted and excluded from the draft roll due to non-submission of the enumeration form, as new first-time voters via Form 6, he submitted.
In its clarification, the ECI said an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) cannot take action against a voter under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, simply because the voter was listed in an earlier electoral roll and has submitted Form 6 during or after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
This, it said, applies as long as the voter is not registered in any other parliamentary or Assembly constituency and has submitted the required declaration under the law.
The clarification came amid concerns that voters whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls could face prosecution for submitting Form 6, which requires applicants to declare that their names are being added to the electoral roll for the first time.
However, Bhushan said assuring immunity from prosecution did not cure the fundamental structural incongruity of treating a voter excluded from the draft list for not submitting the enumeration form as a “first-time voter.”