Politics & Governance28 Oct 2026 · about 6 min

Delhi SIR: Why tell deleted voters to fill Form 6 when they were on 2026 rolls, SC asks EC

The brief

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an exercise to scrutinise and update electoral rolls. It includes an enumeration phase in which voters are asked to provide information for checking their entries. The process matters because names can be retained, corrected, or removed from the draft roll. In Delhi, the enumeration phase took place in July. After it, 47.7 lakh names were deleted from the draft voter list published on August 31. The deletions represented 33% of the Union Territory’s electorate before the exercise began. The Election Commission later directed officials to restore eligible people who may have been wrongly excluded through Form 6. The revision has prompted legal challenges and concerns about genuine voters being removed. The Supreme Court is examining whether previously enrolled voters should instead be allowed to submit enumeration forms or Form 8 when their addresses changed. The case could affect how excluded voters return to the rolls.

What is a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and what happened to Delhi’s voter list during this exercise?

In Delhi, the enumeration phase took place in July. After it, 47.7 lakh names were deleted from the draft voter list published on August 31. The deletions represented 33% of the Union Territory’s electorate before the exercise began. The Election Commission later directed officials to restore eligible people who may have been wrongly excluded through Form 6.

The revision has prompted legal challenges and concerns about genuine voters being removed. The Supreme Court is examining whether previously enrolled voters should instead be allowed to submit enumeration forms or Form 8 when their addresses changed. The case could affect how excluded voters return to the rolls.

How many voters were deleted from Delhi’s draft electoral roll, and how many of those deletions were attributed to people who had shifted addresses?

The draft voter list for Delhi deleted 47.7 lakh names. The figure was released on August 31, after the Special Intensive Revision exercise. It represented 33% of the Union Territory’s electorate before the revision began, making the scale of the change especially significant.

Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri, said 43 lakh of those deleted voters had been marked as having shifted. He argued that these people should be able to use Form 8, the form for changing addresses, rather than being treated as first-time applicants.

The figures explain why the revision has become contentious. The Election Commission directed panels to restore eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded through Form 6. The Supreme Court is considering whether voters should instead get more time to submit enumeration forms or use the appropriate address-change process.

Why did the Supreme Court question the Election Commission’s instruction that previously enrolled voters use Form 6 after being deleted?

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission because the deleted voters had already appeared on earlier electoral rolls. Form 6 is designed for first-time voter registration and requires applicants to declare that they have not been electors before. Applying it to existing voters could therefore create an inaccurate declaration.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, noted that some voters may not have received enumeration forms because they had changed addresses or were travelling. It asked why these voters could not now submit the enumeration form or Form 8, which is used for address changes. Petitioners said the process was forcing shifted voters into the wrong category.

The Election Commission’s counsel said the suggestions would be examined. The issue matters because the draft roll removed 47.7 lakh names, while the petitioners said 43 lakh were deleted as shifted. The court’s questions may influence how eligible voters are restored.

What are Form 6, the enumeration form, and Form 8 each used for in the voter-registration process?

Form 6 is used to register first-time voters. Applicants must declare that they have not been electors before. That requirement is central to the dispute because many people removed from Delhi’s draft roll had been enrolled on earlier rolls.

The enumeration form was used during the SIR’s enumeration phase. Voters were expected to complete it so officials could check their entries. Form 8 is used when an elector has shifted residence and needs an address change. Petitioners said 43 lakh deleted Delhi voters were classified as shifted and should have been able to use Form 8.

The Election Commission later directed panels to restore eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded through Form 6. The Supreme Court questioned that approach and asked why voters could not submit enumeration forms or Form 8 instead. The Commission said it would examine the court’s suggestions.

What could happen to eligible voters if their names are wrongly removed from the electoral roll or if correcting their status requires a form meant for first-time voters?

If an eligible voter is wrongly removed, the person’s name is absent from the draft electoral roll and must be restored through a correction process. That can create delay, uncertainty, and difficulty proving that the voter was already enrolled. It also risks treating an existing elector as a new applicant.

The problem is clearest with Form 6. It requires applicants to declare that they have not been electors before. Petitioners said deleted voters were being forced to make a false declaration, while former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi said the form was only for new voters. The Election Commission nevertheless directed restoration through Form 6.

The Supreme Court verbally assured voters in a separate matter that nobody would be prosecuted for submitting Form 6 to restore a name. The Delhi High Court also called the fear of prosecution misplaced. Still, the Supreme Court is examining whether enumeration forms or Form 8 offer a more accurate route.

What has the Supreme Court previously said about the legality of SIR and about whether the Election Commission can use it to decide Indian citizenship?

The Supreme Court previously upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision in May. Its ruling did not give the Election Commission power to make citizenship decisions. The court specifically said that conducting SIR does not mean the Commission can decide whether a person is an Indian citizen.

This distinction matters because electoral-roll revision and citizenship determination are different questions. SIR can examine whether names and voter details belong on the rolls, but the article says the Commission cannot use it to decide Indian citizenship. That limitation remains relevant as names are checked and deleted.

The article also reports that concerns have continued since the exercise began. Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states cited SIR to deny ration cards to people removed from rolls, and police sometimes denied passport renewals. The Supreme Court’s earlier position therefore provides an important boundary for how the exercise is used.

Why do democratic elections depend on accurate electoral rolls, and how do voter registration, address changes, and periodic roll revisions help maintain them?

Democratic elections depend on electoral rolls that identify eligible voters accurately. Registration adds people who qualify, while address updates keep entries linked to current residences. Periodic revisions help remove errors and update records. These processes matter because an incorrect roll can exclude eligible voters or retain outdated information.

The Delhi dispute shows why each mechanism must fit the voter’s situation. Form 6 is for first-time voters, Form 8 is for address changes, and enumeration forms were used during the SIR process. Petitioners said 43 lakh deleted voters had shifted addresses, yet the Election Commission required Form 6 for restoration.

The current case highlights the need for clear procedures and enough time for voters to respond. The Supreme Court asked why voters could not submit enumeration forms or Form 8. More broadly, reliable revisions require accurate records, accessible corrections, and safeguards for people who were already enrolled.

This brief was written by AI from the original reporting and checked by other models. Names, figures and quotes come from the source; read it for full context.