Supreme Court Hears Delhi SIR Form 6 Challenge on Voter Re-Enrollment

• Around 47.7 lakh names were removed from Delhi's draft electoral roll, prompting a Supreme Court challenge.
• Affected voters are being asked to re-enroll using Form 6, which includes a declaration for first-time applicants.
• The Supreme Court clarified it has neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6 used by the Election Commission of India.
• The Court previously questioned the ECI's "mechanical" issuance of notices and sought clarification on "logical discrepancies" in voter flagging.
• Petitioners seek transparency on deleted voter names, specific reasons for deletion, and the algorithms used for identifying discrepancies.

The Supreme Court recently clarified its stance on this modified Form 6. A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana stated unequivocally that it has neither approved nor disapproved the altered form used by the Election Commission of India.

The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi has led to a significant legal challenge before the Supreme Court, as numerous voters whose names were removed from the draft electoral roll are now required to re-enroll using Form 6. This process began after the draft electoral roll, published on August 31, 2026, indicated the removal of approximately 47.7 lakh names from an existing list of about 1.45 crore electors. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has directed these individuals to submit Form 6, which is typically used for first-time voter registration and includes a declaration to that effect.

A group of affected voters has brought their concerns to the Supreme Court, highlighting the problematic requirement to declare themselves as new voters despite having been on previous rolls. Advocate Prashant Bhushan recently informed a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant about an urgent application filed within the existing Delhi SIR petition. Bhushan emphasized that individuals are being asked to complete a declaration in Form 6 stating they have not voted before, with an impending deadline of October 30th. He suggested the ECI might consider allowing the use of Form 8 instead, which is for corrections. CJI Kant acknowledged the urgency, indicating the court was considering an order to address these concerns.

At the heart of the current legal dispute is the specific nature of Form 6, which is designed for individuals seeking initial inclusion in electoral rolls. The controversy stems from an additional declaration incorporated into the online version of Form 6 during the SIR exercise in certain states. This declaration mandates applicants to provide details on whether they, or specific family members, were listed in electoral rolls from a prior SIR exercise. This requirement has raised questions about the appropriateness of using a "new voter" form for re-enrollment.

The Supreme Court recently clarified its stance on this modified Form 6. A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana stated unequivocally that it has neither approved nor disapproved the altered form used by the Election Commission of India. This clarification came after a petitioner highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously indicated its non-approval, while the ECI had reportedly claimed the declaration attached to the form had received judicial endorsement. This judicial statement underscores the court's ongoing scrutiny of the Election Commission of India voter re-enrollment process and the specific tools it employs.

Beyond the Form 6 declaration, the Supreme Court has previously expressed significant concerns regarding the Election Commission of India's broader methodology in the Delhi SIR. On September 22, the Court questioned the ECI about the manner in which notices were being issued to voters during the Special Intensive Revision of Delhi’s electoral rolls. This inquiry arose from a petition concerning notices sent to over 33 lakh voters whose names were flagged due to "no mapping" with the 2002 electoral roll or identified "logical discrepancies."

The Court critically observed that these notices appeared to have been issued "almost mechanically," prompting it to seek clarification from the ECI regarding the criteria used to identify voters under the "logical discrepancy" category. Furthermore, the bench requested detailed information on the manpower deployed for the extensive verification exercise. The petition, filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri and argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan, specifically challenges the ECI's failure to disclose the names of voters who received notices and the precise reasons behind each notification. The petitioners are seeking a searchable, consolidated list of all affected electors, along with the specific reasons for each notice, and a full disclosure of the criteria, algorithmic parameters, and operational guidelines underpinning the identification of "logical discrepancies." This Supreme Court electoral roll revision Delhi challenge highlights fundamental questions about transparency and due process.

The extensive scale of the Delhi SIR Form 6 Supreme Court challenge underscores the significant impact of the electoral roll revision on voter rights in the capital. The initial draft electoral roll's removal of nearly 4.77 million names from the voter list represents a substantial portion of the electorate, raising concerns about potential disenfranchisement if the re-enrollment process is not transparent and accessible. The Election Commission reported that its enumeration phase successfully collected and uploaded forms for approximately 97.51 lakh electors, but the subsequent deletion of millions of names has created widespread anxiety.

The ongoing legal proceedings, particularly the Supreme Court's focus on the "mechanical" issuance of notices and the ambiguity surrounding "logical discrepancies," are crucial for establishing precedents for future electoral roll revisions. The outcome of this challenge, including any directives from CJI Surya Kant regarding the Form 6 declaration controversy, will have direct implications for how the Election Commission conducts such exercises nationwide, ensuring that voter deletion logical discrepancies are addressed fairly and transparently. This case is pivotal for safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and protecting the fundamental right to vote for millions of citizens.

Lawyers advising on electoral law or representing affected voters should closely monitor the Supreme Court's ongoing proceedings regarding the Delhi SIR and Form 6. The Court's scrutiny of the ECI's 'mechanical' notice issuance and 'logical discrepancy' criteria could establish crucial precedents for future electoral roll revisions and impact voter rights, requiring timely advice to clients on compliance or potential legal recourse.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.