'Bulk Form 7 applications in UP SIR were fake', says ECI; Supreme Court orders corrective steps

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Friday informed the Supreme Court that bulk Form 7 applications submitted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh had been found to be false and were not acted upon. The court directed the poll panel to examine any remaining allegations, undertake necessary corrections and submit a compliance report.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing an application filed in petitions challenging the SIR exercise in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners include Congress MP Tanuj Punia and Samajwadi Party leader Arvind Kumar Singh.

Form 7 is used to seek the deletion of a person's name from the electoral roll. Allegations of its misuse had raised concerns about attempts to remove eligible voters from the rolls through fraudulent applications.

𝗘𝗖𝗜 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱

During the hearing, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, said the Commission had filed its counter-affidavit and examined the allegations concerning bulk submission of Form 7 applications.

Naidu told the bench that election officials had conducted checks and cross-verification before concluding that the applications were false. He maintained that no action had been taken on the fraudulent submissions.

The applicant's counsel, however, disputed the Commission's position and sought judicial scrutiny of the matter. The counsel questioned the ECI's claim that none of the disputed applications had been received, pointing to alleged irregularities in a particular constituency.

According to the applicant, 32 Form 7 applications had been submitted against members of a particular community in one constituency, with two of the applications allegedly bearing the signatures of booth-level officers (BLOs).

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

The applicant's counsel alleged that the failure to take adequate corrective measures during the Uttar Pradesh SIR had encouraged similar practices elsewhere. The counsel referred to allegations involving Karnataka and Telangana, noting that election authorities in Telangana had directed the registration of an FIR over bulk Form 7 submissions.

After hearing the submissions, the Chief Justice asked the applicant's counsel to furnish the ECI with details of any outstanding irregularities. The bench directed the Commission to examine the factual aspects, make necessary corrections and file a compliance report before the court.

The direction requires the ECI to consider the additional material submitted by the petitioners rather than treating its earlier examination as the final word on the allegations.

𝗞𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀' 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱

The bench also considered petitions concerning the SIR exercises in Kerala and Chhattisgarh. Naidu submitted that the revision process in both states had been completed and argued that the petitions had largely become infructuous.

In the Kerala matter, counsel for the petitioners sought additional time for verification, contending that a substantial number of people had been unable to complete the required formalities. The counsel claimed that around 24 lakh people remained outside the verification process.

The Chief Justice initially suggested that the period could be extended by a few days. However, the ECI's counsel said no representation seeking such an extension had been received and pointed out that elections had already been conducted following the revision exercise.

The court subsequently observed that corrections to electoral rolls could continue even after the formal revision process had concluded. It asked the petitioners to provide details of persons who could not submit their enumeration forms because of insufficient time.

The bench directed the ECI to consider such cases sympathetically and submit a report to the court.

𝗘𝗖𝗜 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲

In the Chhattisgarh matter, the petitioners pointed out that the ECI had not filed a counter-affidavit despite the Supreme Court issuing notice in December.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, argued that the completion of the SIR exercise did not make the legal challenge irrelevant. He alleged large-scale deletions from the electoral rolls and sought a comprehensive response from the Commission.

The Supreme Court granted the ECI four weeks to file its counter-affidavit and respond to the additional note proposed to be submitted by the petitioners.

The proceedings highlighted continuing judicial scrutiny of electoral roll revision exercises, particularly allegations of fraudulent deletion requests and the exclusion of eligible voters. The court's directions require the Commission to address specific complaints even where the formal revision process has been completed.