New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday made significant remarks with regard to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, questioning the Election Commission of India’s (ECI’s) stand that voters deleted from the draft roll for not filling up the enumeration form should re-apply using Form 6, even if they are listed in the 2026 electoral rolls.
Form 6 is used by first-time voters to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. An enumeration form is a document filled by an existing voter, which is used by the ECI during an SIR to verify, update, or collect the voter’s details.
Calling it a structural incongruity, the bench said that the poll body has to address it.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana advised the ECI not to rush through the SIR process in Delhi, since the national capital is not going to polls anytime soon, and asked the poll panel to consider extending the deadline for filling up enumeration forms.
“Why don’t you permit them (deleted voters) to submit the enumeration form instead of Form 6?” Justice Bagchi remarked.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the poll body, agreed with the suggestions and assured the court that the ECI will have a discussion on remedial steps that can be taken, as well as extension of the deadline for filling up enumeration forms.
During the hearing, the bench pointed out that Form 6 is meant for first-time voters and applicants would have to declare that they have not voted before while filling it up.
In Delhi, the court underlined, there would be voters who did not receive the enumeration form due to change in their addresses or because they went out of the city to work on a temporary assignment. Seeking to know the rationale behind asking such voters to apply as fresh voters, the bench asked why can’t they fill up the enumeration form or Form 8 (to show change in address), instead of filing Form 6.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by activists Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri raising issues regarding the Delhi SIR process.
The CJI said ECI can issue a clarification to say that Form 6 is for those who want to register as first-time voters and is not meant for those who were in the 2026 electoral rolls, but could not collect the enumeration form for various reasons.
The bench also suggested that the ECI create a residual category of those who temporarily relocated to a different address.
Arguing for the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted that of the 47 lakh voters deleted from the draft roll, 43 lakh are shown to have permanently shifted or absent. They are those who never received the enumeration forms, and they were not being allowed to fill up Form 8 (change in address), but forced to apply under Form 6 as first-time voters.
“They are making people fill up a false declaration that they have not voted before. One easy solution is there—allow people to fill enumeration forms even now. Those who have shifted should fill up the enumeration form and Form 8. Form 6 is for new voters. We are not new voters,” he said, adding those who have shifted from one booth to another are barred from filling up the enumeration form on the ground that their address was not the same.
Naidu attempted to convince the bench that the ECI won’t prosecute anyone for filling up Form 6 despite being a voter in the last poll list. However, he said Form 6 is first-time voters as far as SIR is concerned.
“The reason why we are calling them first-time voters, is [because] it is a clean slate. Insofar as the draft list, he was not there,” he submitted to the bench.
Should a person lose right to vote because they didn’t fill enumeration form?
Asked what was the basis for the SIR, Naidu replied it was the latest poll list, which means the one prepared in 2026. At this, Justice Bagchi shared the bench’s concern over ECI’s stand on Form 6. “So if it is the 2026 list, and the person is not residing there, the enumeration form is not reaching him, you say he has shifted or absent. You call upon the person to file Form 6, declaring my name was never in the list. It’s an error. You ask for further declaration—when and where you were born, where is the connection, name of father, etc.”
He added: “We understand your de novo enquiry. If you are relating back only to 2003, this exercise is understandable. Because you have erased all lists post-2026. Everyone is a new voter. SIR Form 6 should say my name is not included in the 2003 voters list. But if you take 2026 as cut-off, and someone has shifted, you have to permit them Form 8.”
The judge further reflected upon Bhushan’s argument. “How did you serve enumeration forms? Voters are 1.45 crore…you started issuing enumeration forms from sometime 30 June…you take about 1.5 months to serve 1.45 crore, of which 97 lakh respond. 47 lakh do not respond. This lack of response you characterise as absent, shifted, dead or duplication.”
The categorisation of those who did not respond is exhaustive, Justice Bagchi said, adding that it was possible that a group was not served because its members had moved to a new address or was not in Delhi or was travelling for a month. And by the time this category learnt about the SIR exercise, the distribution of enumeration form ended. According to the current structure, the judge observed, such a person would have to fill up Form 6, which is actually meant for a person who was never in the rolls.
“Somebody might not have shifted; they were not served the form. You have not created that structure. You look into that issue,” Justice Bagchi told Naidu.
CJI too asked Naidu as to how he proposed to resolve the incongruity, considering that Delhi has a fluctuating population. “Instead of putting the burden on them that they will approach, why don’t you reach out to them?”
Justice Bagchi underscored that Form 6, Form 7, Form 8 are “cast in stone” and cannot be changed. At the same time he added that ECI has residual powers in the SIR process to add to these forms by seeking declarations.
Justice Bagchi suggested that a declaration can be sought as to why they could not collect or respond to the enumeration form.
Justice Bagchi emphasised on the right to vote as a “vital right” and asked if a person should lose the right to be on the roll because they did not fill the enumeration form.
“Your job has been done with due diligence. Let’s say the voter was at lapse…did not respond— will that be a ground to forfeit the right (to vote) forever? When the voter comes and says please put in these papers, you say put in Form 6. How does he file Form 6?” asked Justice Bagchi, adding: “Will you say the person forever loses the right to come into the electoral roll?”
The judge gave his own example. Under the Representation of the People Act, he said, he has not “shifted” from his constituency, though he is not present there now.
“The thing is, till your final roll is there, why Form 6? They can file enumeration forms. Shifted, dead, deleted or other reasons,” the judge told Naidu.
At this, the CJI advised the ECI to publish a list of deleted persons, asking them to contact the nearest Booth Level Officer to file Form 8s.
“The effort should be, how to reduce the gap of 43 lakh. One suggestion, the list published should clearly spell out 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. Ask them to contact the nearest BLO and fill Form 8,” the CJI said, as he adjourned the matter by two weeks.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Congress issues 6-point rebuttal to ECI’s SIR affidavit in Supreme Court