Supreme Court to hear plea on EC's Form 6 clarification amid concerns over Delhi voter roll revision

The Court agreed to hear concerns about the Election Commission's November 3 clarification during Delhi's special intensive revision. The clarification permits voters missing from the draft roll to submit Form 6 for inclusion in the final roll. The issue matters because many omitted voters had already been enrolled before the revision.

Petitioners Anjali Bharadwaj and Amrita Johri said the clarification appeared inconsistent with the Court's October 28 observations. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that earlier voters should seek restoration through Form 8 or an enumeration form, rather than apply as new voters through Form 6.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, will take up the matter on November 19. It also indicated that it could ask the EC to extend the deadline if necessary. The Court said people need not be apprehensive while it considers the issue.

Form 6 is the application used to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll. In this dispute, the concern was not simply the form itself, but how it was being used. Previously enrolled voters whose names disappeared from Delhi's draft roll were being told they could submit the same form used for new enrolment.

The Supreme Court questioned that requirement on October 28. Petitioners argued that voters already shown in the 2026 electoral rolls should be able to seek restoration through Form 8 or an enumeration form. Requiring Form 6 could make returning voters appear to be applying for the first time.

The EC's November 3 clarification said Form 6 could be submitted regardless of earlier enrolment. It also said this would not by itself be a false declaration or trigger Section 31 action, provided the voter was not enrolled elsewhere and the declaration complied with the law. The Court will examine the concern on November 19.

Delhi's revision involved approximately 47 lakh omitted names. The pre-revision electorate contained around 1.45 crore electors. The figures show why the Supreme Court treated the issue as significant: the problem was not limited to a small group of isolated cases.

The EC published the draft electoral rolls on August 31 after the special intensive revision. The Court later asked for a mechanism to reach the 47 lakh people whose names had been struck out. It suggested publishing their names and directing them to contact the nearest Booth Level Officer.

The exact restoration process remains under scrutiny. The Court questioned why previously enrolled voters should use Form 6, and suggested accepting enumeration forms from deleted voters instead. The EC said it would consider late forms and extend the October 30 deadline if needed. The November 19 hearing may address how the gap should be reduced.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an electoral-roll checking and updating exercise. The article describes Delhi's ongoing SIR as a process in which a draft roll was prepared and names were omitted from the earlier electorate. It does not provide a fuller procedural definition.

Names may be removed when the revision does not confirm a person's eligibility or current enrolment details. In this case, the article reports that approximately 47 lakh names were omitted from the pre-revision electorate of around 1.45 crore. It does not give individual reasons for every omission.

That lack of detail became part of the legal concern. The plea asked the EC to publish the list of electors who received notices, with specific reasons for each notice. The Court also asked the EC to reach omitted voters and consider forms that could restore their names. The process remains before the Court on November 19.

The EC says an omitted voter can submit Form 6 to seek inclusion in the final roll. The Supreme Court and petitioners discussed Form 8 or an enumeration form as more suitable ways for previously enrolled voters to seek restoration. The article does not state that every application will automatically succeed.

The EC clarified that using Form 6 after earlier enrolment or voting would not, by itself, amount to a false declaration. It also said no action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, would begin merely for that reason.

That protection has conditions. The voter must not already be enrolled in another parliamentary or assembly constituency, and the declaration must otherwise comply with the law. The EC cited the Delhi High Court's observations in Nilotpal Datta v. EC. The Supreme Court will consider the broader process and deadline on November 19.

The Election Commission manages the electoral-roll revision and decides how applications are handled. It issued the November 3 clarification, allowed Form 6 submissions, and said it would consider late enumeration forms and an extended deadline. It also clarified when Section 31 action would not be initiated.

The Supreme Court provides oversight. It questioned the need for Form 6, asked how the EC would reach 47 lakh omitted voters, and suggested publishing their names. The bench also proposed directing affected people to contact the nearest Booth Level Officer and indicated that it could extend the deadline.

Booth Level Officers are the local contact point identified in the Court's suggestion. They would help affected voters connect with the roll-revision process and submit the relevant form. The article does not describe their full statutory duties. The November 19 hearing will examine the EC's approach and possible next steps.

An electoral roll is the official list used to identify voters connected with a constituency. If an eligible person's name is missing, that person may be unable to vote there. The article therefore treats accurate rolls as essential to protecting the right to vote.

Delhi's draft roll omitted about 47 lakh names from a pre-revision electorate of around 1.45 crore. The Court said the right to vote is vital and cannot be forfeited even if a voter is absent. It asked the EC to reach omitted voters and suggested that they contact the nearest Booth Level Officer.

Maintaining accuracy requires a workable correction process. The EC allows Form 6 under its clarification, while the Court and petitioners discussed Form 8 or enumeration forms for previously enrolled voters. The Court will hear the dispute on November 19 and may consider extending the deadline if necessary.