Did EC apply its mind during Delhi SIR deletions? asks SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the Election Commission (EC) had applied its mind while deleting names from Delhi's draft electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It asked the poll panel to explain why voters already registered in the 2026 rolls were being asked to fill Form 6 as new voters after shifting addresses. The top court also directed the EC to allow voters who had not submitted their enumeration forms or had shifted residences to complete the process, including by filing Form 8 for address changes. The poll panel assured the bench that the October 30 deadline for filing claims and objections would be extended.

The draft electoral roll published on August 31 excluded 47.57 lakh of Delhi’s 1.45 crore registered voters, categorising them as absent, shifted, deceased or duplicate. The claims and objections window, initially scheduled to close on September 30, was later extended to October 30.

By October 26, the EC had disposed of 31.26 lakh of the 33.14 lakh notices issued over mapping issues and discrepancies, including 18.97 lakh of the 19.34 lakh cases flagged for logical discrepancies. It had also received 2.67 lakh Form 6 applications, 20,074 Form 7 objections and 1.01 lakh Form 8 applications. The final roll is scheduled to be published on December 4.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the treatment of voters who may have been temporarily away from their registered addresses when Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited to distribute enumeration forms. It questioned whether failing to submit the form within the stipulated period could be grounds for permanently denying someone the right to vote.

"Right to vote is a vital act," Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, questioning whether a voter who failed to return an enumeration form on time should lose the right to re-enter the electoral rolls.

The bench also asked the EC why someone whose name was already on the 2026 electoral roll but had subsequently shifted residence was being asked to fill Form 6, which is meant for new voter registration.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant asked the EC to explain why such voters could not instead use Form 8, which is meant for shifting residence within a constituency or from one constituency to another.

Justice Bagchi said Forms 6, 7 and 8 were prescribed under the law and could not be altered. Instead, the EC could seek a declaration or clarification from voters explaining why they had failed to submit their enumeration forms within the stipulated time, Bagchi said.

The Supreme Court also questioned the EC's approach towards people who had shifted temporarily or were unable to receive the forms because they were away from home.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Hans India