EC can't alter Forms 6, 7, 8, says Supreme Court in Delhi SIR row

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that Forms 6, 7 and 8 are “cast in stone” and cannot be changed, though the Election Commission (EC) has residual powers during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to add to them by seeking declarations.

Observing that the right to vote is vital and cannot be forfeited even if a voter is absent, the court asked the poll panel to devise a mechanism to reach out to 47 lakh of 1.45 crore Delhi voters whose names were struck out in the draft voter list.

It also advised the EC to accept enumeration forms from deleted voters instead of asking them to fill Form 6, 7 and 8.

Form 6 under scrutiny

The top court questioned the poll panel on requiring previously enrolled voters, whose names are omitted from the draft rolls, to file Form 6, which is meant for first-time enrolment.

Also read: SIR explained: From voter deletions to Form 6, what has changed?

A bench comprising Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked why voters already on the 2026 roll must file Form 6. It also advised the EC not to fix a deadline.

“The right to vote is a vital right. Your job is to act with due diligence. Let’s say the voter was amiss... will that be ground to forfeit the right forever? A voter comes and says, please put in these papers. You say, put in Form 6. How does he file Form 6?

“This is structural incongruity... if he has not filled an enumeration form and draft roll having been published, he has not shifted... will you say the person forever loses the right to come in roll?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Justice Bagchi distinguished this situation from an exercise in which the EC was verifying entries against the 2003 electoral roll. The bench also referred to Rule 13 of the relevant rules and questioned whether the EC had adequately considered why some electors could not respond to enumeration forms.

Court’s suggestions

“You see how to reduce this gap of 43 lakh. We will take up after two weeks.

“One suggestion, please publish the list telling that you are the 43 lakh persons who were earlier shown in so and so... that we have not been able to contact you, please see that you are able to contact us,” the CJI orally observed, adding, “Ask them to contact nearest BLO and fill Form 8.”

The bench suggested that the EC publish a list of the approximately 43 lakh electors it had been unable to contact, including the polling locations at which their names had previously appeared. The information should be easily accessible so that affected persons can establish their status and approach the nearest booth level officer (BLO).

Also read: Karnataka SIR: Chief Electoral Officer says ‘no bulk deletion’ of voters

It asked the EC to continue accepting Forms 6 and 8, issue public notices clarifying that there was no cutoff date for approaching the authorities at this stage, and persuade affected voters to come forward. The bench also asked the poll panel to explore ways to facilitate re-enrolment of voters who may have been marked as shifted or absent despite not having been contacted during the enumeration exercise.

The CJI asked the EC not to be constrained by the existing timetable and to develop a mechanism to determine whether affected electors had shifted permanently, were temporarily away or continued to reside in Delhi. He added that the EC could verify information submitted through Form 8 and seek supporting documents wherever doubts arose.

EC’s defence

The EC told the bench that it will consider accepting late enumeration forms and will extend the October 30 deadline if needed.

Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the EC, said the omission of names at the draft-roll stage should not be understood as a final deletion, and that the process remained open for eligible persons to seek inclusion.

The CJI, however, pointed out that the EC’s approach appeared to presume that electors continued to reside at their earlier addresses. If they had moved and the enumeration form had not reached them, they might not have had an opportunity to participate in the exercise.

Also read: RTI reveals two Election Commissioners’ complaints against senior EC officer: Reports

Noting that migration was common in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, where people frequently move between localities in search of employment and other opportunities, the CJI asked: “Instead of burdening them that they will approach, why don’t you reach out to them?”

The bench also asked how enumeration forms were served on electors and what would happen to those temporarily away from Delhi or unable to respond within the prescribed period. The poll panel said it had conducted awareness camps and deployed thousands of BLOs, with booth-level agents of political parties also assisting.

Plea behind the case

The proceedings arose from a petition filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri challenging aspects of the SIR in Delhi. It seeks a direction to the EC to make public the list of electors who were issued notices during the exercise, along with the specific reasons for each notice.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said approximately 47 lakh voters had been omitted from Delhi’s draft electoral rolls, which had covered around 1.45 crore electors before the SIR.

On August 31, the EC published the draft rolls following the SIR. The court will hear the plea again in two weeks.

(With Agency inputs)