SC to ECI: Why should previously enrolled electorate file Form 6 as first-time voter?

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India over its insistence that voters excluded from Delhi's draft electoral roll following the special intensive revision exercise submit Form 6, meant for first-time enrolment, despite having been registered voters in the 2026 electoral roll.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said Forms 6, 7 and 8 are statutory forms whose prescribed formats cannot be altered by ECI although it can seek additional particulars from applicants. The observation came amid concerns over requiring previously enrolled voters to seek fresh enrolment instead of providing an appropriate mechanism to restore their names to the roll.

The bench clarified that it had not adjudicated the legality of the "logical discrepancy" category used during SIR. Justice Bagchi observed that the issue had not arisen during the Bihar SIR proceedings and that the court had permitted the category's use in West Bengal only as an interim arrangement. The SC indicated that it would examine the legality of the category and its application in "greater detail at a later stage".


A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea challenging aspects of the Delhi SIR exercise.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that approximately 47 lakh names were missing from the draft electoral roll, with around 43 lakh electors categorised as permanently shifted or absent. He argued that many had not received enumeration forms and were consequently being asked to apply afresh through Form 6 despite having been previously enrolled.

Bhushan contended that this required existing voters to make a declaration inconsistent with their electoral history. Form 8, which facilitates changes to an existing elector's address and other particulars, would be more appropriate for those who had shifted residence, he submitted.

Justice Bagchi questioned how voters who had been temporarily away for work could be treated as permanently shifted. He flagged the absence of an appropriate mechanism for electors who had not received enumeration forms, raising concerns over the consequences for their voting rights.

CJI suggested that ECI publish lists of excluded electors, identifying their previous entries, and inform them that officials had been unable to contact them. Affected electors may then approach their nearest booth-level officer to complete formalities. SC asked ECI to accept late enumeration forms and extend the October 30 'claims and objections' timeline.

ECI's counsel has agreed to examine the concerns and consider corrective measures.