The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether voters removed from Delhi’s draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) should be required to submit Form 6 for re-enrolment despite having been registered previously. The Court assured affected voters on Wednesday that the matter remained under its consideration and there was no reason for apprehension.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, directed Advocate Prashant Bhushan to move a formal application concerning the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) clarification issued on Tuesday.
The bench scheduled the matter for November 19. The Chief Justice also said the Court could require the Commission to extend the deadline if circumstances warranted.
Dispute Centres on Status of Previously Registered Voters
The controversy concerns the registration procedure for people whose names appeared on electoral rolls until May-June 2026 but were subsequently excluded from the draft list during SIR.
Bhushan submitted that requiring these individuals to complete Form 6 effectively placed them in the same category as people seeking registration for the first time.
He argued that this approach failed to account for their previous enrolment and the circumstances in which their names had been removed.
Drawing attention to the Supreme Court’s October 28 hearing, Bhushan said the bench had orally identified this difficulty in the Commission’s proposed procedure.
According to him, the latest clarification addressed the possibility of criminal proceedings against applicants but did not resolve the question of which registration form previously enrolled voters should use.
Different Procedures Suggested for Shifted and Absent Voters
Bhushan referred to the figures recorded during the revision exercise to explain why the distinction mattered.
Of those identified in the Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) category, 31.59 lakh had been classified as shifted, while another 11.73 lakh were recorded as absent or untraceable.
He submitted that the Supreme Court had orally indicated on October 28 that shifted voters should have access to Form 8 rather than being required to seek registration through Form 6.
For voters recorded as absent or untraceable, the Court had suggested accepting Enumeration Forms even after the prescribed submission period, he said.
Bhushan also recalled the bench’s observations concerning outreach to approximately 47 lakh people on the ASDD list.
According to his submissions, the Commission had been asked to make the list available in Hindi at booth and block levels, contact those affected and facilitate submission of the appropriate forms.
He said the Court had additionally called for more time to file claims and objections.
The Commission’s latest communication, he argued, did not incorporate these measures.
What the Election Commission Clarified
The ECI’s Tuesday communication dealt specifically with concerns about possible prosecution of voters applying through Form 6 after their names had been removed.
It explained that an Electoral Registration Officer could not proceed against an applicant under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, solely on the ground that the person had appeared on an earlier electoral roll.
The Commission said submitting Form 6 during or after SIR would not, by itself, attract action under that provision, provided the applicant was not registered in another parliamentary or Assembly constituency and had made the declaration required by law.
The clarification was issued against the backdrop of concerns over the declaration contained in Form 6, which relates to inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time.
Bhushan maintained that removing the threat of prosecution was distinct from correcting the procedure itself. In his submission, individuals excluded because they had not submitted Enumeration Forms should not be treated as new voters when their previous registration was undisputed.
The bench did not determine that issue during Wednesday’s proceedings. It instead permitted the objections to be brought through a formal application for consideration on November 19.
