Supreme Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea Challenging Maharashtra SIR

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India to respond to a petition challenging Maharashtra’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. This is a significant step because the petition alleges that millions of voters were removed from the draft rolls. The Court will hear the ECI before considering the petitioner’s requests for relief.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, declined to pass an ex parte order. It would not extend the claims-and-objections deadline or stop publication of the final voter list without first hearing the ECI. The case was posted for November 5.

The final list is scheduled for publication on November 6. Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar asked for more time, saying nearly 3 crore voters had been deleted and restoration would take time. The Court said nobody would be prosecuted for deleted voters filing Form 6, but it did not order a new form or delay the process.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to review electoral rolls. In general, election authorities conduct such revisions to verify voter information, remove duplicate or ineligible entries, correct errors, and include eligible residents. The goal is to produce an accurate list of people entitled to vote.

The Maharashtra process involved publishing draft rolls and allowing claims and objections before the final list. The petition alleges that nearly 3 crore names were struck off after the draft rolls appeared. It says 1.22 crore deletions were attributed to a “logical discrepancy,” while many voters in Pune and Bombay were marked “person not found.”

The process matters because the final roll controls who can vote in an election. In this case, the petitioner says many voters moved after redevelopment projects and were removed despite having voted previously. The Supreme Court has sought the ECI’s response but has not stopped publication of the final list, due on November 6.

The petitioner’s senior advocate told the Supreme Court that nearly 3 crore voters had been struck off Maharashtra’s rolls after the draft rolls were published. He described this as nearly 33% of the state’s approximately 9 crore voters. The figure is the central scale of the challenge before the Court.

The petition also gave a narrower category: 1.22 crore voters were reportedly deleted for a “logical discrepancy.” In Pune and Bombay, Datar said 40% of voters were not present in the revised records. He linked many urban deletions to redevelopment, which had relocated residents, while some names were marked “person not found.”

These figures are allegations presented by the petitioner, not findings recorded by the Court in the article. The Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI and will hear the case on November 5. The final list is scheduled for November 6, although the petitioner sought more time to restore deleted names.

Form 6 is the application used to register a person as a voter. The petitioner’s senior advocate described it as a form meant for first-time voters. His objection is that people deleted during Maharashtra’s SIR are not necessarily new applicants. Many were previously registered and had already voted.

The concern is about the declaration attached to the form. Datar said an applicant must declare in Form 6 that they have not voted before. He argued that asking an existing voter to use it could force a false declaration. He therefore asked for a separate form for voters removed during the revision.

The Chief Justice responded that nobody would be prosecuted for deleted voters filing Form 6. Datar said that assurance did not solve the underlying problem. The article does not state that a new form was ordered. The Court only issued notice to the ECI and declined, at this stage, to halt the roll-finalisation process.

A person whose name is absent from the final electoral roll generally cannot cast a vote at that election. The electoral roll is the official record used to identify registered voters. If a deleted person cannot successfully restore the entry, the practical consequence is loss of access to voting until registration is corrected.

The Maharashtra petition describes voters being told to file Form 6 after deletion. Datar objected because those people had previously been registered and, in some cases, had voted. He said the form’s declaration could create a problem for existing voters. The petition also says many names were removed after relocation caused by redevelopment projects.

The article does not state how many people will ultimately remain excluded or whether every deletion will be reversed. The Supreme Court has not yet ordered a pause or restoration. It has sought the ECI’s response and listed the matter for November 5, one day before the scheduled final list.

The article identifies claims and objections as the main opportunity to challenge deletions before the final electoral roll is published. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to extend that deadline. He also asked the Court to delay finalisation because Maharashtra has no immediate election and restoring millions of names would take time.

The article says the claims-and-objections deadline was the day of the hearing. Deleted voters were also being asked by the ECI to file Form 6 to register as fresh voters. However, Datar argued that this route was unsuitable for people who had already been registered or had voted. He requested a separate form for them.

The Court expressed disinclination to extend the deadline without hearing the ECI. It issued notice and listed the case for November 5. The article does not describe a separate appeal procedure, a required document list, or the outcome of individual claims. The final list remained scheduled for November 6.

Electoral rolls are the official lists that determine which people are registered to vote in a particular area. In general, election systems use them to confirm eligibility before a ballot is issued. This makes accuracy essential: an eligible person left off the final list may be unable to vote, while inaccurate entries can weaken confidence in the process.

Common safeguards include publishing a draft, inviting claims and objections, checking submitted information, and allowing legal review. The Maharashtra dispute centers on these protections. The petitioner says nearly 3 crore names were deleted, including people marked “person not found” after relocation. He also challenges the use of Form 6 for previously registered voters.

Here, the claims-and-objections deadline was the day of the hearing, and the final roll was due on November 6. The Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI but refused to pause the process without hearing it. The article does not detail the ECI’s verification rules or the Court’s eventual decision.