Voters will not face prosecution for submitting Form 6 after being deleted during SIR, says SC

The Supreme Court verbally assured voters that they would not face prosecution for submitting Form 6 after being excluded during the special intensive revision, or SIR. This matters because Form 6 normally requires applicants to declare that they have not registered or voted before. Voters feared that using it could amount to a false declaration.

The petitioner’s advocate argued that existing voters presenting themselves as fresh voters could commit an offence. Chief Justice Surya Kant responded, “Do not worry. Nobody will be prosecuted.” The court also issued notice to the Election Commission.

The court did not extend the deadline for claims and objections or stop publication of the final electoral roll. The case concerns Maharashtra’s voter-roll revision and is scheduled for further hearing on November 5. The assurance addresses prosecution fears but does not itself create a separate form.

Form 6 is the application used for first-time voter registration. Its purpose is to add people who have not previously registered as voters. That is why the form requires applicants to state that they have not registered or voted before. The wording creates a problem when an existing voter’s name disappears from the electoral roll.

A deleted voter may need to use Form 6 after the Election Commission directs officials to restore eligible people who were wrongly excluded. However, that voter is not truly a first-time applicant. The petitioner argued that a separate form should be introduced for this situation.

The dispute matters because voters feared that filing Form 6 could be treated as a false declaration and lead to prosecution. The Supreme Court verbally assured them that nobody would be prosecuted. The Delhi High Court had earlier called that fear misplaced.

Nearly three crore voters were reportedly deleted after Maharashtra’s draft electoral rolls were published. The state has approximately nine crore voters. The figures show that the dispute involves a very large share of the electorate, not only a small number of individual corrections.

The deletions followed the special intensive revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. The petitioner challenged the revision in the Supreme Court and argued that voters excluded from the rolls needed a suitable way to restore their names. The current instruction has been to use Form 6 for eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission but declined to extend the deadline for claims and objections. It also declined to restrain the poll panel from publishing the final electoral roll. The matter was listed for further hearing on November 5, so the process remained ongoing.

Many residents were marked absent because old residential buildings in Mumbai and Pune were undergoing redevelopment. Residents were shifted out while new flats were being built. During the SIR, officials reportedly recorded them as absent and later deleted their names from the electoral rolls.

The petitioner’s lawyer said thousands of residents were affected. The lawyer cited around 3,500 redevelopment projects in Mumbai and 1,500 in Pune. The explanation connects temporary relocation with the revision process: people moved away from their listed addresses, officials treated them as absent, and their voter registrations were removed.

The issue matters because temporary displacement does not necessarily mean a person is ineligible to vote. The petitioner asked for a separate form to help such voters restore their names. The Supreme Court assured voters they would not be prosecuted for using Form 6, but it did not create the requested form or halt publication of the final roll.

The petitioner argued that voters wrongly deleted during the electoral-roll revision should not have to use Form 6. Form 6 is designed for people registering for the first time, so its declaration does not fit existing voters seeking restoration. A separate form, the lawyer said, would address that mismatch.

The issue arose after the Election Commission directed poll panels to restore eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded. The direction told states where the revision was complete to conduct the restoration exercise through Form 6. The petitioner’s lawyer said this approach could force existing voters to present themselves as new voters.

The Supreme Court verbally assured voters that no one would be prosecuted for submitting Form 6 in this situation. However, it did not order the Election Commission to introduce a separate form. The court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 5.

If eligible citizens are wrongly removed from the electoral roll, they may be unable to vote. The article says concerns about the SIR include denying genuine electors their right to vote and potentially shaping election outcomes. Accurate voter records therefore affect both individual participation and the wider electoral process.

The article gives redevelopment in Mumbai and Pune as one example. Residents temporarily moved from old buildings were reportedly marked absent and later deleted. The Election Commission directed officials to restore eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded, using Form 6. The petitioner said a separate form was needed.

The effects may extend beyond voting. The article says Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states cited the SIR to deny ration cards to people eliminated from the rolls. In some cases, police denied permission for passports to be renewed. The Supreme Court has not halted final-roll publication and will hear the matter again on November 5.

An electoral roll is the official list used to identify people registered to vote. It matters because a person generally needs to appear on that list to participate in an election. If eligible citizens are missing, they can be denied their right to vote even though they qualify.

The Maharashtra dispute shows how errors can arise. Residents shifted during redevelopment were reportedly marked absent and later removed. Nearly three crore voters were reportedly deleted from draft rolls in a state with about nine crore voters. The Election Commission directed officials to restore eligible people who may have been wrongly excluded.

An accurate roll must therefore remove ineligible entries while retaining eligible citizens. The SIR has faced concerns that genuine electors could be denied voting rights and that election outcomes could be affected. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission, declined to stop the process, and listed the matter for November 5.