SC: Order to clear Form 6 anomaly will come October 28

The Supreme Court is expected to consider an order that addresses the problem faced by voters whose names were irregularly deleted from Delhi’s draft electoral roll. The issue matters because the available Form 6 route requires them to claim they are seeking inclusion for the first time, even though many were already registered voters.

The court made this assurance after advocate Prashant Bhushan sought an urgent hearing for RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj’s petition. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, initially proposed October 30 but agreed to hear the application on October 28 because the Election Commission’s correction deadline is October 30.

The article does not specify the final wording or exact mechanism of the proposed order. It reports that the bench was thinking of passing an order that would “take care of” the anomaly. The decision could therefore clarify how deleted voters may seek restoration or inclusion without making an inaccurate first-time declaration.

Form 6 is the application mechanism identified in the article for people seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. Its problem here is the declaration attached to it. Applicants must state that they are seeking inclusion in the voter list for the first time.

That statement does not fit voters whose names were already on Delhi’s rolls before the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, began. Bhardwaj’s petition said the only mechanism available to irregularly deleted voters was Form 6. Such voters would be trying to re-enter the roll, not join it for the first time. The declaration would therefore be factually incorrect.

The concern is practical as well as procedural. People may be forced to choose between an inaccurate declaration and difficulty restoring their names. The Supreme Court said it was considering an order to address this anomaly, while Bhushan suggested Form 8 or another suitable process for existing electors.

Delhi’s draft electoral roll excluded 47,56,722 voters who had been on the rolls before the Special Intensive Revision began. This is the central scale of the dispute. The excluded voters were placed under absent, shifted, dead, and duplicate, or ASDD, categories.

The draft roll recorded 1,45,10,299 voters on the earlier rolls. Of them, 97,53,577 submitted enumeration forms and remained represented in the draft roll figures cited by the article. Among those excluded, nearly 32 lakh were categorised as permanently shifted. That category alone accounts for a large share of the disputed cases.

The numbers explain why the correction mechanism matters urgently. The Election Commission extended the deadline for claims and objections from September 30 to October 30. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the application on October 28, shortly before that deadline, after the petition argued that deleted voters lacked a suitable way to re-enter the roll.

If previously registered voters must use Form 6, they would have to declare that they are seeking inclusion for the first time. That would be factually incorrect for people whose names appeared on the electoral rolls before the Special Intensive Revision began. The problem affects the accuracy of the application itself.

The article does not state a specific penalty or automatic rejection for making that declaration. It does show that the declaration creates a procedural obstacle. Voters whose names were deleted under categories such as absent, shifted, dead, or duplicate would be trying to restore or re-enter their names, not register as first-time applicants.

This could make it harder for legitimate existing electors to correct the draft roll within the available time. Nearly 47.56 lakh people were excluded, including nearly 32 lakh classified as permanently shifted. The Supreme Court’s proposed order may provide a way to address the anomaly before the October 30 claims and objections deadline.

The Election Commission is responsible for preparing the draft electoral roll and providing the process through which voters can file claims and objections. In this case, it set October 30 as the last date for correcting the discrepancy and extended the claims-and-objections period from September 30. The article also identifies Form 6 as the available route for irregularly deleted voters.

The Supreme Court’s role is to examine the legal and procedural problem raised by the petition. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to hear the application on October 28. The bench said it was considering an order that would take care of the anomaly caused by the Form 6 requirement.

The article does not assign a final solution to either institution. It reports that Bhushan suggested allowing Form 8 or another appropriate mechanism. The Election Commission would need to implement any direction, while the court could clarify how existing electors should seek restoration or inclusion.

Form 8 could provide a different route because the proposal is aimed at voters who were already on the electoral roll. Instead of treating them as new applicants, it could be used for correcting, restoring, or otherwise dealing with an existing elector’s missing name. The article does not confirm that this route has been approved.

Prashant Bhushan suggested that the Election Commission be directed to let people seeking re-entry apply through Form 8. He also mentioned another appropriate mechanism to restore or include names of existing electors missing from the draft roll. This would differ from Form 6, whose declaration says the applicant seeks inclusion for the first time.

The immediate question is whether the court will direct such a distinction before the October 30 deadline. The bench said it was considering an order to address the anomaly and agreed to hear the application on October 28. Until a final order or procedure is announced, the article leaves the alternative as a proposal.

In general, electoral-roll correction works by publishing a draft list and allowing affected people to submit claims or objections. Officials then examine those submissions before finalising the roll. This process matters because voters must be correctly recorded, while errors such as wrongful deletion can prevent eligible people from appearing in the list. The article focuses on this process during Delhi’s SIR.

Here, the draft roll classified excluded names under absent, shifted, dead, and duplicate categories. The Election Commission extended the claims-and-objections deadline from September 30 to October 30. The petition says irregularly deleted voters were directed toward Form 6, even though that form requires a first-time-inclusion declaration. Form 8 or another mechanism was suggested for existing electors.

Accurate records and a workable correction route help ensure that genuine discrepancies can be challenged in time. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the application on October 28 and said it was considering an order to address the anomaly. The article does not state the final outcome.