Supreme Court questions Election Commission on use of Form 6, ‘logical discrepancy’ notices to voters amid SIR

The Supreme Court asked the Election Commission of India not to force nearly 4.3 million Delhi residents to file Form 6 as new voters. These residents were removed from the draft rolls after officials could not find them at their last known addresses. The court said many may only have moved temporarily or changed residence.

It suggested using Form 8, which handles address-related changes, or allowing voters to restore their names through the enumeration process. The bench also questioned why voters who were already registered should have to declare that they were never enrolled. It called the arrangement a structural incongruity.

The court urged the ECI to reach out proactively instead of placing the full burden on voters. It asked for public lists showing whose forms were not received, along with earlier electoral details and instructions to contact booth-level officers. The ECI must return with details of its steps in two weeks.

Form 6 is intended for a person seeking first-time enrolment as a voter. Form 8 is intended for address-related changes. The distinction matters because a voter who has moved is not necessarily a new voter. Their earlier registration should remain the starting point.

The court gave the example of Delhi’s migrant population, which often moves between localities or cities for work. It said temporary absence for a month or two does not prove permanent relocation. A person who merely changed residence, or was away when officials visited, should not have to declare that they were never enrolled.

The bench said Forms 6, 7 and 8 were “cast in stone” and could not simply be reworked. It therefore questioned how a shifted voter could be required to file Form 6. The court suggested Form 8 or the relevant enumeration process, while allowing officials to verify information and request documents where necessary.

The largest group left out of Delhi’s draft electoral roll consisted of about 4.3 million electors marked as permanently shifted or absent. Within that group, approximately 3.159 million were marked as permanently shifted, while around 1.1 million were described as untraceable. These labels affected people officials could not locate through the revision process.

The wider shortfall was larger. Of approximately 14.5 million electors at the start of the special intensive revision, around 9.7 million submitted enumeration forms. About 4.7 million did not submit them. This group also included roughly 0.28 million recorded as deceased and 0.14 million recorded as duplicates.

The court asked the ECI to bridge the gap between the original roll and the draft roll published on August 31. It urged the commission to publish lists, explain available remedies in simple language, and keep accepting relevant forms while checking the information. The ECI agreed to discuss the suggestions and indicated the timeline would be extended.

If an eligible person’s name is missing from the draft electoral roll, they may be unable to vote unless they successfully claim restoration. The immediate consequence is exclusion from the roll, not necessarily a final legal loss of voting rights. But failed forms, unclear instructions, or inaccessible officials could make that exclusion difficult to correct.

The court focused on voters who had already been registered but were treated as though they had never enrolled. It questioned whether such people should have to use Form 6, especially when they had merely shifted residence or were temporarily absent. It asked, “will you say the person forever loses right to come in roll?”

The judges proposed practical safeguards: use Form 8 or enumeration forms, publish names and earlier electoral particulars, and direct people to booth-level officers. They also asked the ECI not to insist on a cut-off date at this stage. The commission is expected to return with details of its response.

The Supreme Court said it had not upheld the Election Commission’s use of the “logical discrepancy” category. It questioned the legality of the mechanism and asked whether officials applied meaningful human judgment before flagging voters. The concern was that a category presented as a logical problem might rely mainly on patterns produced by an algorithm.

The article gives a stark example from West Bengal, where the controversial category led to the disenfranchisement of 2.71 million people. An automated or poorly explained flag can place a voter’s name in doubt without clearly showing what information caused the problem. That can shift the burden onto voters to prove their eligibility.

The court said the legality of the category would need separate examination. It also pressed the ECI to make the revision accessible, publish relevant information, and allow claims while verifying documents where needed. The broader issue is whether electoral safeguards can prevent data-based flags from removing eligible voters without adequate review.

The court said previously registered voters should not all be sent back to the beginning of the enrolment process. For people who merely changed address, it suggested Form 8. It also pointed to the enumeration process as another way to restore names, rather than requiring every person to apply through Form 6 as a new voter.

The judges proposed several supporting measures. The ECI could publish lists of voters whose enumeration forms were not received, include their earlier electoral particulars, and tell them to contact the nearest booth-level officer. The information should be available at polling booths and other accessible locations. Public notices should explain the different forms in simple language.

The court also asked the ECI to reach out to voters instead of waiting for them to find officials. It said relevant forms should continue to be accepted while information is verified and documents requested when necessary. The court asked for an update in two weeks and indicated that the timeline would be extended.

An electoral roll revision updates the voter list by collecting enumeration forms, checking earlier electoral particulars, and identifying records that may involve deaths, duplicates, shifted voters, or missing information. In Delhi’s revision, about 14.5 million electors were initially listed, and the draft roll was published on August 31. People can then file claims and objections before the final roll.

The process matters because the roll determines whose names are available for voting. The court’s example shows the risk: officials could not find many residents at old addresses, and about 4.3 million were marked permanently shifted or absent. The court said temporary absence is not the same as permanently moving.

Accurate registration supports universal adult suffrage by ensuring eligible voters are not excluded through mistaken labels, missing forms, or inaccessible procedures. The court therefore urged simple notices, outreach, accessible records, and continued acceptance of forms. It also said the “logical discrepancy” mechanism requires separate examination.