Supreme Court: Delhi SIR ECI Form 6 Directive Contradicts Court Observations

• The Supreme Court is reviewing the Election Commission of India's directive for deleted Delhi voters to re-register using Form 6.
• Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the ECI's Form 6 instruction contradicts the Court's prior observations and could force false declarations.
• The Delhi Special Intensive Revision removed approximately 47.7 lakh names from the electoral roll, with 43 lakh identified as shifted and 2 lakh as deceased.
• The Court previously questioned the ECI's 'mechanical' issuance of notices to over 33 lakh voters flagged for discrepancies.
• A crucial hearing is scheduled for November 19 to address the procedural conflicts and clarify voter re-enrollment guidelines.

The Court's final decision will significantly impact how electoral roll deletions and re-enrollments are managed, setting a precedent for ensuring that citizens' voting rights are protected through clear and equitable procedures.

The Supreme Court recently addressed a significant procedural conflict concerning the Delhi Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, following a clarification issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The ECI's November 3 statement advised voters whose names were deleted from the rolls to file Form 6 for re-registration as new voters. This directive, however, was brought to the attention of a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued that it directly contradicted the Court's own observations made just the previous week.

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice affirmed that the matter remains under judicial consideration and reassured the public that there was no cause for apprehension. The Court has instructed the petitioners to submit a formal application detailing the ECI's recent clarification. A comprehensive hearing on this critical issue is scheduled for November 19, which is expected to provide further clarity on the proper re-enrollment process for affected voters in Delhi.

The Delhi Special Intensive Revision has drawn considerable scrutiny since the draft electoral roll was published on August 31, 2026. This revision resulted in the removal of approximately 47.7 lakh names from an existing list of about 1.45 crore electors. Of these deletions, the ECI indicated that 43 lakh individuals were identified as permanently shifted, while an additional 2 lakh were deceased.

Concerns regarding the revision process were initially brought before the Supreme Court by several voters who had been instructed by the ECI to re-enroll using Form 6. On September 22, the Court questioned the ECI about the methodology used for issuing notices to voters during the ongoing revision. Specifically, the Court examined a plea concerning notices sent to over 33 lakh voters flagged for either 'no mapping' with the 2002 electoral roll or 'logical discrepancies,' observing that these notices appeared to have been issued 'almost mechanically.'

A central point of contention revolves around the ECI's insistence that deleted voters, including those on the Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASDD) list, must use Form 6 to seek inclusion in the electoral rolls. This requirement directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's earlier stance that voters already present on the 2026 rolls should not be compelled to register as new voters via Form 6, which is primarily intended for first-time electors. Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted a critical flaw: Form 6 includes a declaration that the applicant has never voted before, which would necessitate a false statement from previously registered voters.

Bhushan further pointed out that Form 8 is the appropriate mechanism for voters who have shifted residences, yet the ECI is directing them to use Form 6. The petition, filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, challenges the ECI's failure to disclose the names of voters who received notices and the specific reasons for these actions. The petitioners have requested a searchable, consolidated list of all electors who received notices, along with the precise reason for each, and have also sought transparency regarding the criteria, algorithmic parameters, and operational guidelines used to identify 'logical discrepancies' in the electoral data.

The Supreme Court's ongoing involvement underscores the critical importance of ensuring fair and transparent electoral processes. Last week, the Court had urged the Election Commission to consider accepting late enumeration forms and, if necessary, extend the October 30 deadline for the Delhi SIR. It also sought an explanation from the ECI regarding the rationale for requiring existing voters on the 2026 roll to file Form 6, particularly after approximately 43 lakh individuals were identified as shifted or absent.

The ECI had previously committed to filing a report within two weeks to address these concerns. The upcoming November 19 hearing is therefore crucial, as it is expected to clarify the ECI's obligations and the rights of voters affected by the Delhi Special Intensive Revision. The Court's final decision will significantly impact how electoral roll deletions and re-enrollments are managed, setting a precedent for ensuring that citizens' voting rights are protected through clear and equitable procedures.

Lawyers advising clients in Delhi on electoral roll matters, especially those whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision, must closely monitor the Supreme Court's ongoing proceedings. The Court's final decision will clarify the correct procedure for re-enrollment, specifically regarding the ECI's directive to use Form 6, and will inform advice on voter rights and compliance with electoral processes.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law