SC to hear plea on October 28 against ECI move to enrol deleted Delhi voters as new ones

The Supreme Court is being asked to examine whether the Election Commission of India can treat voters deleted during Delhi’s special intensive revision as new applicants. The challenge says this approach misrepresents their existing status and creates unnecessary legal risks. The timing matters because the deadline for claims and objections is October 30.

The disputed process requires deleted voters to use Form 6, a form meant for inclusion for the first time. The ECI also requires legacy details linked to the 2002 rolls and an SIR-specific additional Declaration Form. The application argues that these requirements were introduced through executive directions rather than a statutory amendment.

RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj filed the application, which advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned before Chief Justice Surya Kant. The Court plans to hear it with other Delhi SIR cases on October 28. It indicated that it may pass directions before the claims deadline expires.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a focused process for examining and updating electoral rolls. It includes an enumeration phase, publication of a draft roll, and a period when voters can file claims and objections. The article presents Delhi’s SIR as the ECI’s exercise for reviewing existing voter records.

During Delhi’s enumeration, 4,756,722 electors were excluded from the draft roll under categories including absent, shifted, dead and duplicate. The draft contained 9.7 million voters. Another 3.3 million were listed under logical discrepancies and unmapped records, and two million of those had been verified.

The article does not state a separate reason why the ECI began the SIR in Delhi. It does show the process is intended to resolve disputed or mismatched records through claims, objections and verification. The deadline was extended from September 30 to October 30, making the Supreme Court’s October 28 hearing urgent.

The draft electoral roll excluded 4,756,722 Delhi electors during the enumeration phase of the SIR. The article says this was 32.78% of the voters who existed before the revision started. The scale explains why the deletion process has become a major legal and administrative issue.

The excluded voters were placed under ASDD categories: Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate or other categories. The draft roll still contained 9.7 million voters. Separately, 3.3 million voters were listed under logical discrepancies and unmapped records, of whom two million had been verified.

The exclusion is not necessarily the end of the process because claims and objections are being accepted. The deadline was extended from September 30 to October 30. The Supreme Court wants to hear challenges on October 28, before that deadline, because its directions could affect how excluded voters seek restoration.

Deleted voters are being asked to use Form 6 to seek inclusion again after their names disappeared from Delhi’s draft electoral roll. The application challenges this treatment because Form 6 is framed for someone applying for inclusion for the first time. That makes the form’s wording important for voters who were previously enrolled.

Form 6 requires personal particulars, including name, gender, date of birth and present ordinary residence. It also asks for a relative’s name and Aadhaar number. Its declaration requires the applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time. The modified process also asks for legacy details linked to the 2002 rolls.

The plea says the ECI added these requirements through an executive order, not a statutory amendment. It also challenges an SIR-specific additional Declaration Form. The dispute is therefore about both the form’s wording and whether the ECI used the proper legal process to add conditions.

The legal concern is that a previously enrolled voter would have to declare they are applying for inclusion for the first time. The application says that statement conflicts with the voter’s actual history, because the person was already on the rolls and may have voted in earlier elections. The issue is not merely administrative wording; it affects a voter’s legal declaration.

Form 6 specifically warns that a false declaration can attract penal consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. The plea therefore says deleted voters are knowingly placed in a position where they must either make an inaccurate statement or risk difficulty seeking re-inclusion. It describes this as a contradiction in the process.

The application also challenges the separate SIR Declaration Form. It says this additional condition is absent from the statutory Form 6 and was not introduced through the prescribed statutory process. The Supreme Court must consider whether such requirements can lawfully govern restoration of existing voters.

If the Supreme Court did not issue directions before October 30, Delhi’s deadline for filing claims and objections would expire while the disputed process remained under challenge. The Court treated this timing as urgent because the existing listing was for October 30, when the matter could become infructuous. It therefore moved the hearing to October 28.

The practical dispute concerns how deleted voters must seek inclusion. They are being directed toward Form 6, which asks applicants to declare that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. The challenged process also requires legacy details and an additional SIR Declaration Form. The plea says these requirements expose existing voters to false-declaration concerns.

The article does not state exactly what would happen to each voter after the deadline. It does establish that claims and objections are the route currently available and that the deadline is decisive. The Court said it intends to pass orders that take care of the situation, alongside other Delhi SIR challenges.

A statutory rule is made under authority granted by election law and through the procedure prescribed for that law. It forms part of the legally established framework governing electoral rolls. An executive instruction, by contrast, is an administrative direction issued to implement or manage a process. The article says the distinction matters when new conditions affect a voter’s ability to seek inclusion.

Here, the plea argues that Form 6 is statutory, while the ECI’s modified requirements and additional Declaration Form came through executive directions. It says an executive order cannot impose an extra substantive condition without statutory authority, especially when that condition affects an elector’s access to the roll.

The article notes that during the non-SIR period, the additional Declaration Form is not required and only forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, are used. The Supreme Court will consider the challenge on October 28. It had also sought records on changes to voter forms.