Delhi SIR case: Supreme Court agrees to ‘take care of’ ECI move to restore deleted voters as fresh voters

The Supreme Court agreed to intervene after hearing that Delhi voters deleted during the Special Intensive Revision face a serious procedural problem. They can restore their names only by filing Form 6, even though that form says they are applying for inclusion for the first time. The Court recognised that this declaration may be inaccurate for previously registered voters.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi asked the Court to direct the Election Commission to create a suitable restoration process. They suggested allowing Form 8, used for shifted voters, or introducing a new form. The hearing was moved from October 30 to October 28 because October 30 was the deadline for claims and objections.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Bench was considering an order to address the issue. The application asks for restoration without forcing deleted voters to present themselves as first-time applicants. The Court’s intervention could affect how these claims are processed during the Delhi SIR.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an extensive review of an electoral roll to verify entries and update the list. It can examine whether voters remain eligible and whether records contain people who are absent, shifted, dead or duplicated. The purpose is to produce a more accurate draft roll before claims and objections are considered.

In the Delhi exercise described here, an enumeration phase preceded publication of the draft electoral roll. During that process, 47,56,722 electors were excluded under the ASDD category. ASDD stands for Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate. People placed in that category could seek restoration, but the article says the available route was Form 6.

The process matters because removing an existing voter creates a need for a clear restoration procedure. The Supreme Court is considering that problem in Delhi. It may direct the Election Commission to provide a form or mechanism suited to voters deleted during the SIR.

The scale of the Delhi deletions is striking: 47,56,722 electors were excluded from the draft electoral roll. The figure represents 32.78% of the voters who existed before the Special Intensive Revision started. These voters were placed under the category ASDD, meaning Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate.

The exclusion occurred during the enumeration phase of the SIR. The article does not break down the total among the four ASDD categories, so it does not show how many people were considered absent, shifted, dead or duplicate. It does state that anyone on the ASDD list had to use Form 6 to claim restoration.

This large figure gives the dispute its urgency. A process affecting nearly one-third of the previous electorate requires an accessible way to challenge deletions. The Supreme Court moved the hearing to October 28 because the claims and objections deadline was October 30.

Previously registered voters are being asked to submit Form 6 because the article says it is the only mechanism available to people on the ASDD list who want their names restored. The Election Commission has not, according to the application, provided a separate form for voters deleted during the SIR.

The problem is Form 6’s wording. Under the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960, applicants must affirm that they are applying for inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time. A voter previously present on the roll would therefore be making a declaration that does not match their history. The petition calls this factually incorrect and inapplicable.

The applicants say the Election Commission should allow Form 8 for shifted voters or create a new form. They also challenge an additional declaration required with Form 6. The Supreme Court is considering whether to order a mechanism that restores names without requiring this first-time declaration.

Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provides a penalty for giving a false declaration. The article states that the punishment can be imprisonment for a term of up to one year, a fine, or both. It does not report that any Delhi voter has already been punished under this provision.

The concern arises because Form 6 requires applicants to affirm that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. People deleted from the roll during the SIR had previously been enrolled. The petition says making that statement could be factually false for them, even though Form 6 is the only restoration mechanism described for ASDD-listed voters.

The legal risk is therefore tied to the form’s wording and the lack of a tailored alternative. The application asks the Supreme Court to require a proper restoration process. Such a process could let previously registered voters seek re-inclusion without making the disputed declaration.

The clearest alternatives identified in the article are allowing Form 8 or creating a new form. Advocate Prashant Bhushan said Form 8 could apply to shifted voters, while a dedicated form could address people whose names were deleted during the SIR. Both options would avoid using a first-time inclusion form for previously enrolled voters.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to frame an appropriate mechanism for restoration or inclusion. It also challenges the additional declaration required with Form 6. The application says this declaration lacks the force of law and should be struck down. The article does not describe the full contents of that declaration.

The Election Commission has also clarified that the additional declaration would not be required during non-SIR periods, according to the petition. The applicants say this creates a parallel mechanism for the same purpose. The Court’s order could determine whether Delhi needs a separate procedure during the ongoing SIR.

An electoral roll is an official list of registered voters for an election area. Election authorities maintain it by adding eligible voters, correcting details, and removing entries that should no longer remain. Accurate rolls matter because they connect eligible citizens with their right to participate in representative government. They must also give people a fair way to challenge mistakes.

The Delhi SIR illustrates both sides of this task. Its ASDD category covered people recorded as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate. But 47,56,722 electors, or 32.78% of the previous electorate, were excluded from the draft roll. Anyone seeking restoration was directed to Form 6, despite having been enrolled before.

The current dispute is about accuracy and due process together. A review may identify incorrect entries, but wrongly deleted voters need a practical correction route. The Supreme Court’s intervention could shape how the Election Commission restores names and handles similar revisions in future. This general explanation uses established electoral knowledge beyond the article.