Boost for ECI: Delhi HC upholds SIR, use of Form 6 for registration of voters who shift home

New Delhi: Upholding the ECI’s existing procedure, the Delhi High Court has directed an elector from the National Capital to fill Form 6 - used to register new electors - rejecting his plea to allow the use of Form 8 for change in address after his name was removed during SIR due to shifting to a new premises.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary refused to accept the plea filed by Nilotpal Datt and others to issue directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to recast the procedure governing existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR.

The petitioners’ grievance was that when enumeration forms were being filled, they could not fill the form as they had shifted from the old address and consequently their names got deleted from the electoral roll.

Datta and other petitioners were seeking from the ECI the transposition of their existing electoral entries, through Form 8, instead of requiring them to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6 – a plea that did not find favour with the court.

Justice Mehta and Justice Choudhary took on record the Election Commission’s assurance that Datta would not be accused of furnishing a false declaration if he uses Form 6 for addition of name to the voters’ list.

The ECI’s Form 6 is used by an individual to register as a new elector, and Form 8 is used as a voter application form for shifting of residence/correction of entries in the existing electoral roll.

Standing Counsel for ECI Sanjay Vashishtha submitted that if the petitioners are genuinely concerned for redressal of their grievance, the same can be redressed if they choose to fill/furnish Form 6 prescribed under Rule 25(2) read with Rule 13(1)(a) of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

He submitted that even on the previous date of hearing, he had requested Datta to fill the Form and even assured that the Electoral Registration Officer would extend assistance, but the petitioners have chosen not to do so for the reasons best known to them.

The court said, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that when the suggestion is coming from the learned standing counsel appearing for ECI, that too as per the instructions of the Electoral Registration Officer, petitioner no.1’s apprehension that he would be accused of furnishing a false declaration is misplaced.”

“With these observations, the writ proceedings are closed. Petitioners, if so desire, may fill Form 6, which shall be processed in accordance with law,” said the court in its decision delivered on October 14.

The petitioner had asked the court to issue directions to recast the procedure governing existing electors who could not be enumerated during the SIR, in conformity with the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, so as to preserve the statutory procedure for correction and transposition of their existing electoral entries, including through Form 8, instead of requiring them to seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]