SC questions ECI over Delhi SIR deletions, asks why shifted voters must fill Form 6

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) had applied its mind before excluding voters from Delhi's draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), asking why people already registered in the 2026 voter list were being required to fill Form 6, meant for new voter registration, after shifting residences.

The court directed the poll panel to facilitate the submission of enumeration forms by voters who had not filed them and allow those who had changed addresses to use Form 8, the prescribed form for shifting residence. The ECI assured the bench that the October 30 deadline for filing claims and objections would be extended.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern that voters who were temporarily away from their registered addresses when Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited to distribute enumeration forms could be excluded from the electoral rolls for failing to submit the forms within the stipulated period.

Justice Bagchi described voting as a “vital act” and questioned whether missing the deadline for returning an enumeration form should prevent a person from being restored to the electoral rolls.

SC questions use of Form 6 for voters who have shifted

The bench asked the ECI why people whose names were already on the 2026 electoral rolls but who had subsequently moved to another address were being asked to submit Form 6 instead of Form 8.

CJI Surya Kant pointed out that Form 8 was designed to facilitate changes of residence, whether within the same constituency or from one constituency to another.

“If someone was a voter in Vasant Kunj and has now shifted to Sarita Vihar, that voter can simply disclose their previous booth number and voter number. Why do they need to fill Form 6?” the CJI asked.

Justice Bagchi said Forms 6, 7 and 8 were prescribed under the law and could not be altered by the ECI. Instead, the commission could ask voters to submit a declaration or clarification explaining why they had failed to return their enumeration forms within the prescribed period.

The court also highlighted the difficulties faced by people who had moved temporarily or were away from home when BLOs visited their addresses. The CJI noted that Delhi, like other metropolitan cities, has a fluctuating population, including daily-wage workers and hawkers who frequently move between neighbourhoods.

The bench suggested that the ECI publish lists of voters omitted from the draft rolls at local offices and polling stations, along with their previous addresses. This would allow people to check whether their names had been excluded and approach the relevant authorities to correct their details.

Over 47.56 lakh voters omitted from draft rolls

The court's concerns followed submissions by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, who highlighted the exclusion of 47,56,732 voters from Delhi's draft electoral rolls after they failed to return their enumeration forms.

Citing figures released by the ECI, Bhushan said approximately 2.12 lakh of these voters had been classified as deceased, while around 43 lakh were categorised as having shifted residences.

He questioned the classification of voters as permanently shifted or untraceable, arguing that many of them could still be living in Delhi.

Bhushan also told the court that several voters who attended public hearings claimed they had been present at their registered addresses but had never received enumeration forms. Others who had moved to new addresses were allegedly being asked to submit Form 6 instead of Form 8.

The submissions raised concerns about whether voters had been excluded because of circumstances beyond their control, including the non-delivery of forms or temporary absence from their homes.

ECI defends revision, cites awareness drives

Responding to the petitioners' concerns, senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the ECI, said voters could approach the authorities to have their names included in the electoral rolls until the last date for filing nominations for an election.

Naidu said the commission had organised awareness camps and deployed BLOs and Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to reach voters. He maintained that the SIR was a fresh revision exercise in which voters were required to submit the prescribed forms.

He also argued that the petitioners were presenting a “scary picture that doesn't exist”.

The bench, however, asked the ECI to consult its officials and devise a mechanism allowing voters to submit Forms 6 and 8, as applicable. It emphasised that the October 30 deadline should not be treated as final, particularly as no election was imminent in Delhi.

SC to examine 'logical discrepancies' flagged during SIR

The court also raised concerns over voters classified under the 'logical discrepancies' category and said it would examine whether the officials involved in the SIR exercise had applied their minds before flagging these cases.

Bhushan told the bench that, according to the ECI's latest press release, around 13 lakh voters had been categorised as unmapped, while nearly 19 lakh had been flagged for logical discrepancies.

Justice Bagchi questioned how voters whose names appeared in the 2003 electoral rolls, which the ECI had used as a reference for mapping, could subsequently be classified as having logical discrepancies.

He said the legality of this categorisation required closer examination. The fact that the Supreme Court had allowed the ECI to proceed with the exercise in its capacity as a constitutional authority did not automatically mean that every aspect of the process was legally valid, he observed.

The court is scheduled to examine the issue further after two weeks.

Background to the Delhi SIR dispute

The dispute centres on the exclusion of 47,56,732 electors from Delhi's draft electoral roll published on August 31, 2026. The draft list retained 97,53,577 voters out of approximately 1.45 crore electors on the rolls before the revision began.

The excluded voters were categorised as absent, shifted, deceased or duplicate under the ASDD classification. The petitioners have challenged the process through which these voters were removed and the requirement that those seeking restoration apply as new voters.

A key concern is that Form 6 requires applicants to declare that they are seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time. The petitioners argue that requiring previously registered voters to make such a declaration is inappropriate and could expose them to legal consequences if the declaration is considered false.

The challenge also concerns additional declaration requirements introduced for the SIR exercise and whether the changes were made in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court's latest observations place the focus on ensuring that voters who were previously registered are given a practical means of restoring their names, while the court separately examines the legality of the ECI's procedures and its classification of voters under the logical discrepancies category.